by on 29 Oct 2011

One of his own books calls him the “Stateless Statesman” and he has been  honored as a “globalist.” He is usually referred to by the liberal media as a “financier” or “philanthropist.” In fact, George Soros is a billionaire hedge  fund operator whose financial manipulations can affect the fates of nations and  their currencies. His hedge fund, Quantum Funds, is based off-shore, making the  sources of his funds practically impossible to determine.

Forbes magazine says Soros has a net worth of $22 billion, making him the  seventh richest person in America.1 The only hedge-fund  manager ranked in Forbes’s top ten, Soros lives in Katonah, New York. He has  been using much of the money to support the Democratic Party and organizations  associated with it.

The exact figure is not known, but it is reported that he spent at least $27  million to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004. At the time, Washington  Post columnist Harold Meyerson, a member of the Democratic Socialists of  America, praised Soros for engineering the “privatization” of the Democratic  Party through funding of the “527? political groups and bypassing what he called  an incompetent Democratic Party apparatus.

He is considered by some the virtual owner of the Democratic Party, having  contributed lavishly to the party, its causes and candidates, including Obama.  Soros had backed Obama for president in 2008, saying that he had “the charisma  and the vision to radically reorient America in the world,” and personally  contributed $50,000, the maximum allowed, to the Obama inauguration.

The Soros “U.S. programs,” as they are called, had taken a new and more  aggressive direction in response to Republican gains in Congress. “When the U.S.  Programs began in 1996, we were in the middle of the Clinton Administration,” declared a “Status Report on Changes in the Open Society Institutes U.S.  Programs.” It explained, “The election of a Republican majority in Congress in  the 1994 midterm elections dramatized the ascendancy of an ideology that exalted  the marketplace as the answer to everything, determined to shrink public  responsibility for all except national defense and criminal justice. In  launching a U.S. Program, George Soros sought to address the growing inequality  fostered by this trend, and to promote public interest values and protect the  public sphere.” 2

Soros made his first big money because of advice provided by Jim Rogers – – his  junior partner, who had recommended defense industry stocks and helped Soros  profit from a defense boom. 3 Today, however, the  Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) argues for massive defense cuts 4 and was instrumental in the Obama policy change  permitting open homosexuals in the Armed Forces of the United States. Our  analysis shows that CAP is one of the top 15 organizations supported financially  by the Soros-funded Open Society Institute (OSI).

The leading recipient of Soros money is the ACLU, which is so extreme that it  favors the legalization of all drugs, even heroin and crack cocaine, and opposes  virtually all measures taken to curtail drug use. In another example of its  extremist approach, the group has rejected funds from the Ford and Rockefeller  Foundations, and participation in the Combined Federal Campaign, because  acceptance of the money would require adopting measures to make sure it does not  employ terrorists or support terrorist activity.

Soros hired Aryeh Neier –– as president of his Open Society Institute (OSI) in  1993. Neier had worked for the ACLU for 15 years, including eight as national  director.

In his book, Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for  Rights, Neier talks about his role in creating the Students for a  Democratic Society (SDS), the same group that would eventually spawn the  terrorist Weather Underground. Neier says that he hired Tom Hayden as one of the  leaders but became disillusioned with Hayden and the pro-communist direction he  took the organization. “I was anti-Soviet and anti-communist and was appalled by  arguments that Soviet repression and the invasion of Hungary were defensive  actions in response to Cold War aggression for which the United States bore  prime responsibility,” he said.5

However, the book, published in 2003, makes no mention of one of Neier’s  close associates at the ACLU, identified Communist Party USA member Frank J.  Donner – – The 1959 report of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, “Communist Legal Subversion: The Role of the Communist Lawyer,” features Donner  as one of several lawyers identified as members of the Communist Party USA  (CPUSA) before the committee.

1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroadage of surveillance2 300x181 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting  Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

Donner’s book The Age of Surveillance

For his part, Donner thanks Neier for helping prepare his 1980 book, The  Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America’s Political Intelligence  System. A blurb from Neier is featured on the book flap, which quotes him  as saying, “Frank Donner knows more about the theory and practice of political  surveillance than anyone else. This magisterial book is essential and  fascinating reading for anyone who wants to know why the government spies on its  citizens and how this spying has shaped American public life.”

Donner refused to admit his CPUSA membership in an appearance before  the committee and attacked those who testified truthfully before it.

The CPUSA was viewed by the FBI and the CIA as a subversive force  representing a foreign ideology and America’s destruction. The CPUSA announced  objective was a “Soviet America.” That is why the CPUSA and its agents, many of  them secret members such as “historian” Howard Zinn – – Obama mentor Frank Marshall  Davis – – singer Paul Robeson and labor leader Harry Bridges – – were under FBI  surveillance and the subject of extensive files about their activities and  associates.

The CPUSA was so extreme during its heyday that it not only defended the mass  murderer Stalin but the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The group also supplied Soviet  espionage agents in the U.S. Government.

1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

Frank J. Donner

This is significant in the case of Donner because, as the committee said in  its report on the Communist lawyer,

“A Communist owes his primary loyalty to an  international revolutionary conspiracy, masterminded in Moscow toward complete  enslavement of the earth’s people. By subordinating himself to this conspiracy,  a lawyer becomes part and parcel of an operation designed to abolish our  constitutional form of government and its guarantee of equal justice under law  in favor of a slave-state existence.”

The nature of the problem can be found in the so-called Venona papers. These  were decoded telegrams between Soviet spies in the U.S. and their superiors in  Moscow showing that about 350 Americans conspired with or spied for the Soviet  Union. John Earl Haynes, who with Harvey Klehr has written two books on Moscow’s  ties to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA),1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroadwho donner2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

has said many of them were members of the CPUSA and that several Soviet spy  rings were operating throughout the U.S. government. Members of the communist  networks included Laughlin Currie – – an adviser to FDR, and Harry Dexter White – – assistant secretary of the Treasury.

Donner, in turn, leads to some other interesting personalities, including  Morton Halperin – – another top aid to Soros, and Robert Borosage – , founder and  president of the Soros-funded Institute for America’s Future and co-director of  its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future. Borosage was  director of the Center for National Security Studies, an organization thanked in  Donner’s book, when Halperin was listed as an “associate” with the group.  Borosage also served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy  Studies.

borasage2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

Robert Borosage

Halperin, Borosage, Jerry J. Berman, and Christine M. Marwick wrote the 1976  book, The Lawless State: The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies. They attacked the CIA for its role in overthrowing the Marxist president of  Chile, Salvador Allende, and the FBI for investigating the communist connections  of Martin Luther King Jr. after being requested to do so by then-Attorney  General Bobby Kennedy.

At the time of the publication of this book, Halperin was director of the  Project on National Security and Civil Liberties, a joint project of the Center  for National Security Studies and the ACLU. Berman was director of the Center’s  Project on Domestic Surveillance.

Accused by Ernest W. Lefever of having “provided [CIA defector and paid Cuban  agent Philip Agee] with classified information for his KGB-assisted book  attacking the CIA,” 6 Halperin became “a senior advisor to  the Open Society Foundations” and one who “provides strategic guidance on U.S.  and international issues.” The official bio states that he “previously served as  director of U.S. Advocacy for the Foundations”7 and as Open  Society Policy Center Executive Director. 8

Halperin’s telephones were tapped when he served under Henry Kissinger in the  Nixon Administration. He was suspected as a leaker of classified information.  When he was nominated as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and  Peacekeeping in 1993, testimony in opposition was provided by Francis J.  McNamara. McNamara’s credentials included:

  • Headed the National Security Program of the  Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).
  • Research analyst and consultant to the House  Committee on Un-American Activities; subsequently director of research and then  its staff director.
  • Executive secretary for the Subversive  Activities Control Board (SACB).
  • Vice-chairman of the Security and Intelligence  Foundation from 1987-90.
  • Senior fellow at the Center for Intelligence  Studies in Arlington, Virginia.

McNamara said the following about Halperin:

For some 25 years, as an employee of the Department of Defense and the  National Security Council as well as in various private sector posts, he has  violated security regulations and/or consistently attacked and strongly opposed  generally accepted security practices, in addition to demonstrating extremely  poor judgment about what constitutes sensitive security information.

Another reason for rejecting Halperin’s nomination is that he has revealed a  sick, unhealthy animus and hostility toward the U.S. Intelligence Community and  the individual agencies composing it, despite their vital relationship to the  security of the Nation.

In the 1976 book, The Lawless State: The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence  Agencies, Halperin and his co-authors wrote:

Communist party affiliation is hardly evidence that someone is a subversive  foreign agent. Many members of the Communist party are and were patriotic  citizens.

This comment was made in a chapter of the book on the matter of the FBI’s  investigation and wiretaps of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. It is  preceded by the report that Stanley Levison, “a close friend and confidant of  King,” was a member of the Communist Party USA.

Information about Levison’s work in the CPUSA was uncovered by Operation  SOLO, described as “a long-running FBI program to infiltrate the Communist Party  of the United States and gather intelligence about its relationship to the Union  of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and other communist nations.” The FBI says  it officially began in 1958 and ended in 1977, although Morris and Jack Childs,  two of the principal agents in the operation, had been involved with the Bureau  for several years prior.

At the behest of Levison, according to John Barron’s book on SOLO, King hired  Hunter Pitts “Jack” O’Dell.

Barron reported:

Unbeknown to Jack or Morris, Levison in the I950s met King and subsequently  attached himself to the young civil rights leader as a personal confidant and  advisor. At the behest of Levison, King later employed Jack O’Dell in the  Southern Christian Leadership Council. Morris identified Jack O’Dell as Hunter  Pitts O’Dell, a secret member of the party’s governing body, the National  Committee. In November I959 Jackson revealed to Jack that O’Dell was working  full time for King and that Levison worked closely with O’Dell.

On May 6, 1960, Jack reported: ‘Hunter Pitts [Jack] O’Dell is working full  time in connection with the King mass meeting to be held in Harlem on May I7,  I960. Working closely with O’Dell are Stanley and Roy Levison [Bennett]. The CP  considers [the] King meeting of the most importance and feels that it is  definitely to the Party’s advantage to assign outstanding Party members to work  with the [Martin] Luther King group. CP policy at the moment is to concentrate  upon Martin Luther King.’

Defending the IPS

In 1980, Aryeh Neier went to the defense of the Institute for Policy Studies  (IPS), an organization with close ties to anti-American regimes that worked  feverishly to undermine President Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy. He  wrote two articles for The Nation magazine (“The I.P.S. and Its  Enemies” in the December 6, 1980 issue, and “An Open Letter To The Times  Magazine” in the May 30, 1981 issue) disputing critical attention being focused  on the IPS by the New York Times Magazine and conservative authors and  writers.

The IPS was the subject of an article, “Think Tank of the Left,” by Joshua  Muravchik that appeared in the April 26, 1981, New York Times Magazine. It noted  that the IPS was formed in 1963 by Richard J. Barnet and Marcus Raskin – – who both  served in the Kennedy Administration. On defense and foreign policy issues,  Muravchik pointed out, some of those associated with IPS had voiced support for  Communist regimes such as Cuba and North Vietnam and revolutionary movements in  Africa, Central America and the Middle East.

In addition, Muravchick noted, the IPS facilitated CIA defector Philip Agee’s – –  travels in Europe, sponsored the controversial figure, Orlando Letelier – – a  Chilean Marxist with close ties to Cuba, and played a key role in the effort to  restrict the operations of American intelligence agencies.

On domestic issues, Muravchik said that in 1978, at the request of 56 members  of Congress, the IPS prepared a study of the federal budget that proposed a  number of Socialist economic measures and a cut in the military budget by nearly  50 per cent. (Fifty-two members requested a similar study in 1982.) The  Muravchik article noted that the IPS was seeking to strengthen its ties with  Congress, the Democratic Party and organized labor.muravchik article2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies  at Home and Abroad

Neier objected to the claim that IPS itself had a stand on political issues  and took particular exception to charges that the organization engaged in  subversive activity or “covert action.”

In fact, the evidence against the IPS was strong and convincing and has  accumulated over time. Most troubling has been IPS manipulation and use of  religious figures. Catholic Priest J. Bryan Hehir taught a course at the  Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) “Washington School” called “Matthew, MARX,  Luke and John.”

washington school2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies  at Home and Abroad

Once the communists seized power in Nicaragua, the IPS held events to rally  support for the regime.nicaragua2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

The 1987 book Covert Cadre documented the communist intelligence  connections of the IPS and even featured photos of Soviet intelligence agents at  IPS events.1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

The IPS conducted international conferences with Soviet KGB-affiliated  research organizations such as the Institute of the USA and Canada and the  USSR-USA Friendship Society. There was official concern over the use of these  conferences by Soviet intelligence.1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroadshultzltr2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

Saul Alinsky – – whose disciples trained “community organizer” Barack Obama,  also spoke at the IPS.

Soviet spy Alger Hiss – the United Nations founder and a U.S. State Department  official, spoke at the IPS on March 23, 1984. IPS regards him as innocent and  launched a series of “Alger Hiss lectures” in 2002, after receiving a bequest  from the estate of Alger and Isabel Johnson Hiss.

1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and AbroadSoviet spy Alger Hiss  (at right) at the IPS.

The IPS promoted “Liberation Theology” at Georgetown University.1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

Senator Ted Kennedy worked closely with the IPS. This photo (below) is from  the Institute for Policy Studies Annual Report, 1979-1980.ed kennedy2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

Another IPS associate, David Cortright – became the Director of Policy Studies  at the Kroc Institute at the University of Notre Dame, an independent, national  Catholic university. He was also listed as a sponsor and participant in the  first national conference of the U.S. Peace Council, a CPUSA-controlled Soviet  front. Notice, too, that Isabel Letelier spoke on behalf of the IPS.pc speakers2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at  Home and Abroad1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

Aryeh Neier, Morton Halperin, and others around Soros object to our  intelligence agencies having the ability to use wiretaps, surveillance, and  informants and undercover agents against certain political groups. They  succeeded in crippling the CIA and FBI in the war against communists,  fellow-travelers, terrorists and their sympathizers.

***These are the people and  organizations that Soros now supports and which are acting to dismantle  America’s defenses against the global Islamic threat.***

Ironically, as noted by Paul Kengor in his book, Dupes, ACLU founder  Roger Baldwin began his career working with the communists “but later he  cooperated with the FBI in identifying Americans working for the KGB.”

Although some limited investigative powers have been restored in the wake of  the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, America is still  vulnerable, as evidenced by the failure of the FBI to solve the post-9/11  anthrax attacks. It is also a reality that the U.S. Congress has nothing  comparable to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the House Internal  Security Committee, or its Senate counterparts. All of them were abolished by  liberals in Congress.

On the executive level, the Attorney General’s list of subversive  organizations is no longer in existence and the Subversive Activities Control  Board was abolished.

***It is curious but telling that George Soros would choose to surround himself  with people who either associated with members of the CPUSA or turned a blind  eye to the threat they represent. Even Soros’s book publisher, Peter Osnos of  Public Affairs Books, has a questionable history. He began his career as an  assistant to I.F. Stone, the pro-communist “journalist” named as a Soviet agent  of influence who was the uncle of Weather Underground communist terrorist Kathy  Boudin –***

Economic Warfare Against the West

Soros engaged in a complex financial transaction that resulted in the Bank of  England losing billions of dollars defending the British pound before having to  devalue it. This assault on the British currency has not been analyzed to the  extent necessary. One author, George Taylor, wrote a book, Germany Tries  Again,9 offering the theory that Soros benefitted from  inside information from the German government, and that Germany is attempting to  re-establish a position of dominance in Europe. The author notes that both  Germany and Soros favored the break-up of Yugoslavia and support for the Muslims  in Bosnia. Other analysts suggest the so-called “rich Europeans” who invest with  Soros and conceal their identities are based elsewhere and have greater  influence over him. Other analysts raise the possibility that Soros is supported  by either China or Russia.

In any case, the idea that his wealth has resulted from his own deep  understanding and analysis of global financial markets has to be challenged. The  secret nature of his trading and currency manipulations lends itself to  speculation about whether or not he is in cahoots with other special interests,  including those hostile to the U.S.

Significantly, Soros recently failed in his effort to have the European Court  of Human Rights lift his conviction in an insider trading case in France.

In a major U.S. court case filed by the law offices of David H. Relkin, Soros  was charged with “money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, and bid rigging” and of  having a “pattern of money laundering activities.” A Soros representative was  quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying that the lawsuit was completely  without merit. 10

The suit reviews some of what is known publicly about the history of Soros’s  investments: “In August of 1990, according to Reuters News Agency, the U.S. Drug  Enforcement Agency agents claimed that Banco de Columbia and other banks were  conduits for Latin American DRUG MONEY. In or about August 1994, according to  Reuters, Soros acquired a nine percent interest in Banco de Columbia.”(Mediachecker – > no wonder he wants to legalize drugs)

1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and AbroadSoros

Soros has categorically denied receiving money from drug cartels or any form  of criminal activity. The fact remains, however, that at least some of his  financial operations have been based offshore, in banking and financial centers  that are reported to be considered conducive to money-laundering.

The U.S. Housing Market Collapse

Soros’s conviction in France for insider trading adds to the concern about  his assault on the British pound and what role, if any, he played in the U.S.  financial collapse. It stems from a meeting he had with John A. Paulson, a Wall  Street trader who made billions of dollars on the decline in housing prices.  Joshua M. Brown writes, “One of my favorite anecdotes from the book The  Greatest Trade Ever was when John Paulson heads up to George Soros’ offices  for a light lunch and a heavy discussion of how Paulson’s real estate/ mortgage  crash trade was conceived and constructed.” 11

Gregory Zuckerman of the Wall Street Journal had disclosed the meeting,  noting, “Word of his [Paulson’s] success got around in the world of hedge funds — investment partnerships for institutions and rich individuals. George Soros  invited Mr. Paulson to lunch, asking for details of how he laid his bets, with  instruments that didn’t exist a few years ago. Mr. Soros is famous for another  big score, a 1992 bet against the British pound that earned $1 billion for his  Quantum hedge fund. He declined to comment.” 12

This refusal to comment undermines the idea of the “open society” that he  claims to favor.

The collapse of the financial system in mid-September 2008 greatly damaged  the electoral chances of the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin,  who were ahead in the polls at the time, and paved the way for Obama’s victory. 

Zubi Diamond is the author of the powerful book, Wizards of Wall  Street, which carries the subtitle of “The scam that elected Barack Obama.” He accuses the hedge fund short sellers, including Soros, of being behind the  U.S. financial crisis that enabled Obama to win the presidency.

***Diamond says the Managed Funds Association (MFA), the lobbying arm of the  hedge fund short sellers, is crafty and deceitful. “When they tell you that  short selling contributes liquidity to the market, that is a lie,” he says. “Short selling destroys capital and takes away liquidity from the market. When  they tell you that they are taking steps to remove manipulation from the stock  market, that is a lie. They are taking steps to introduce manipulation to the  stock market, and prime the stock market for manipulation and looting. When they  tell you that the uptick rule is outdated, because of decimalization, that is a  lie. They lie to deceive, to bring forth a big payday from short selling, hence  the looting of America and America’s wealthiest corporations and their  shareholders, sanctioned by their Washington D.C. lapdogs.”***

***“The most influential members of Managed Funds Association, the hedge fund  short sellers, have an anti-capitalism agenda, an anti-industrialized nation  agenda, and a far left liberal, Marxist radical agenda,” Diamond says.” Hedge  Fund short sellers are not capitalist. They are anti-capitalist and they are not  investors; they are anti-investors.” He says they “loot” companies and  countries.***

***Soros Fund Management is a member of the “founder’s council” of the MFA, one  of the most powerful lobbies and special interests in Washington, D.C. The MFA,  which describes itself as “the global voice for the hedge fund industry,” fights  proposals to impose more regulation on hedge-fund managers. The MFA includes  managers affiliated with the 50 largest hedge funds who manage a “significant  portion” of the estimated $1.1 trillion invested in hedge funds.***

***However, the Congress refuses to investigate Soros and his hedge fund. In  fact, Soros is treated so well by Congress that he actually placed his June 3,  2008 testimony to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee into his book, The  Crash of 2008 and What It Means. 1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

Soros is not the only hedge fund operator, of course. Barron’s featured an  interview with Adam Fisher, the 38-year-old founder of Commonwealth Opportunity  Capital, which was carried under the headline, “How to Make Money in a World of  Risk.” The point was that there is money to be made while the world–and  eventually America–goes up in flames.

The hedge funds operate beyond the law and governments. One hedge fund  manager tried to justify his activities by saying:

Truth can be very uncomfortable but worse than truth are those who try and  evade the truth for long periods of times to achieve their ends. For example I  praise John Paulson but his genius was to expose the 20 years of absurd  subsidization of the housing market (Fannie/ Freddie, mortgage interest  deductions, deductibility of property tax on income taxes that only benefits the  poor, a local government industrial complex that encourages residential  development and ever rising prices and a mortgage delivery system that was  corrupt). There was no incentive for anyone to point these issues out because  frankly everyone was in on it. The media too loved this as real estate brokers  fueled ad pages as did mortgage brokers. Ending this charade was painful but  didn’t it make sense for a country to allocate such an absurd amount of  resources to an asset that really serves no value at all. Wouldn’t those  resources be better diverted to healthcare, education, infrastructure rather  than bigger and bigger houses? I lived in China and they tax the hell out of  property and divert the money to infrastructure which makes all their people  more productive. Yes they have some absurd problems too, but wasn’t the bubble  in housing an extreme that needed to end? The fact that Paulson benefited from  the issue in many ways is beside the point. Incentives in any ecosystem matter  probably more than anything and whether you don’t like that he was rewarded for  being a part of the end of this ridiculous real estate complex that’s simply  part of being a species that requires incentives to find the right  path.

***This, then, is the mind-set of the hedge fund short seller. They believe they  should set U.S. Government policies – not through open lobbying and pressure on  Congress but through financial manipulations. They bet on the decline or  collapse of a stock or currency through complex financial instruments handled  mostly through secret off-shore accounts in order to damage or destroy a  particular sector of the economy. However, before audiences such as those at the  libertarian Cato Institute, they insist that they “provide liquidity and  transparency to our capital markets” and that their operations “expose corporate  fraud and mismanagement.”**

***Since Congress demonstrates no will to take on the power of these  financial manipulators, at least at this point in time, it is incumbent to  analyze where their activities are leading us – and the world.***

***Soros, the most powerful hedge fund short seller, is open about this part of  his program. He wants to diminish the role of the U.S. in the world, including  the value of the dollar.***

He proposes what he calls “an annual issue of Special Drawing Rights (SDR)  that rich countries would donate for international assistance.” The SDR idea is  a variation of a global tax to finance more foreign aid. SDRs, created by the  International Monetary Fund, have been defined as a form of international  reserve currency intended to “supplement the existing official reserves of  member countries” in transactions with the IMF. What Soros proposes would  greatly alter and expand their use.

As someone who has developed a reputation for practicing financial  and economic warfare against the nations of the world, he seems determined to  drain more wealth away from the United States.

***The Obama Administration’s unofficial point man in U.N. deliberations has  been economist Joseph Stiglitz, a close friend of Soros ***who coordinated a “Commission of Experts” that reported to then-U.N. General Assembly President  Miguel D’Escoto, the notorious Communist [ex]Catholic Priest who received the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union. (Mediachecker – >I need to check but I think Joseph Stiglitz was with Soros and J Sachs when they were raping the Balkins)

Stiglitz produced his own document which called for “the issuance of  additional SDRs,” “additional sources of funding” for global institutions, a new  global reserve currency, and a new global credit facility. In terms of new  funding sources, the document called for “innovative sources of financing such  as emission rights trading and financial transactions taxes…” The concept of “emissions trading” enables corporations to avoid limits on greenhouse gas  emissions if they pay taxes to government. It was part of the “cap and trade” legislation that the liberals were pushing on Capitol Hill.”***

Chapter Five of this document, “International Financial Innovations,” goes  into detail, declaring that “For some time, the difficulty in meeting the UN  official assistance target of 0.7 percent of Gross National Income of developed  industrial countries as official development assistance, as well as the need for  adequate funding for the provision of global and regional public goods (peace  building, fighting global health pandemics, combating climate change and  sustaining the global environment more generally) has generated proposals on how  to guarantee a more reliable and stable source of financing for these  objectives.”

The document notes that an international airline ticket tax is now in effect,  as a result of the actions of the “Leading Group on Solidarity Levies” that now  involves close to 60 countries and major international organizations. This money  is going to fight global diseases.

The term “Solidarity Levies” is U.N.-speak for global taxes.

The Stiglitz document explains, “Some of the initiatives that have been  proposed encompass ‘solidarity levies’ or, more generally, taxation for global  objectives. Some countries have already decreed solidarity levies on airline  tickets but there is a larger set of proposals. There have also been suggestions  to auction global natural resources-such as ocean fishing rights and pollution  emission permits-for global environmental programs.”

1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

Stiglitz at “Occupy  Wall Street” protest

It goes on to say, “The suggestion of taxes that could be earmarked for  global objectives has a long history. To avert their being perceived as  encroachments on participating countries’ fiscal sovereignty, it has been agreed  that these taxes should be nationally imposed, but internationally  coordinated.”

***So the nations of the world, including the U.S., will collect the  taxes but then turn them over to institutions such as the U.N. The world body  will function, in effect, like a global IRS. This is the Soros  plan.***

Stiglitz, it should be noted, showed up at the “Occupy Wall Street” protests  in New York in October 2011 to show his support.

***But there is a difference between the “good” Wall Street and the “bad” Wall  Street that Stiglitz, being on the Soros payroll, doesn’t want to point out.***

Zubi Diamond, author of Wizards of Wall Street & Washington Lap Dogs;  The Scam That Elected Barack Obama, writes that an example of the good  Wall Street would be someone like Steve Jobs, the late founder of Apple: “These  people create, run or finance money-making companies and serve the community  with much-needed jobs and employment, products and services. The good Wall  Street includes the general public mutual funds, retirement portfolios, common  investors, banks and venture capital investors who finance and fund the loans  for our homes and businesses. They fund and finance economic growth and  expansion.”

By contrast, “An example of the bad Wall Street would be someone like George  Soros. These people are the financial hedge fund short-selling operators who  make money by betting on company collapse, economic calamities and  catastrophes.”

Diamond says:

***The only financial reform needed today is to regulate and monitor the hedge  funds and the hedge fund short sellers, some of them which are registered  off-shore to avoid scrutiny. These global operators, with investors who remain  mostly anonymous, must be compelled to register with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (SEC), publicly disclose their positions in the markets, and maintain  accounting and trading records for a period of 10 years so their activities can  be monitored and scrutinized. Just like mutual funds, they must be prohibited  from engaging in day trading activities.

Many people do not realize that the hedge funds are responsible for 75-90  percent of all trading activities on Wall Street. They are responsible for the  extreme market volatility. They are responsible for everything that is bad on  Wall Street.***

In addition to regulating the hedge funds just like mutual funds and pension  funds are regulated, his recommendations include:

  • Reinstate the uptick rule.
  • Remove mark-to-market accounting and replace it  with historic cost accounting.
  • Dismantle and discontinue trading on all the  short Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), also called leveraged inverse ETFs.
  • Reinstate the circuit breakers and the trading  curb to kick in whenever the Dow Jones drops 150 points.

It is significant that Soros has expressed his sympathy for the “Occupy Wall  Street” protests. According to one report, “Soros, during a presentation at the  United Nations in Monday, told reporters he sympathized with the protesters’ anger over such matters as the bailout of banks and the inequities between rich  and poor.” Soros said, “Actually I can understand their sentiment, frankly.”

Soros says this because he knows that the protests represent no threat to the  way he does business. He operates off-shore, outside the jurisdiction of the  Securities and Exchange Commission and any laws or rules and regulations which  may be passed or implemented. The “Occupy Wall Street” protests only threaten  the “good Wall Street” businesses and banks which need and provide capital to  create jobs and offer goods and services to the public.

Financing the Progressive Movement

Soros is, in the jargon of the left, a “fat cat” — perhaps the biggest fat  cat of all time. And his funding recipients constitute a who’s who of the left,  including the extreme left. These are the forces in society that want to see  more government control over the private sector. However, their agenda is  economic, social, and global.

This “fat cat” supports the causes embraced by the organizations he  bankrolls. These include drug legalization, strengthening the United Nations,  opposition to the death penalty, euthanasia, tax increases (including a global  tax), immigrant rights, prisoner rights, feminism, abortion rights, and  homosexual rights.

One notices that Soros finances the establishment of a number of “rights” that have never been self-evident or God-given rights under the American system.  This reflects the influence of Soros’s mentor, philosopher Karl Popper, a  communist in his youth who writings were later adopted as a basis for “democratic socialism” and the notion that government can bestow rights and  manipulate the transformation of society on a gradual basis. Popper thought this  approach would make Marxism’s emphasis on the alleged inevitable historical  process and violent revolution unnecessary.

***One right that he does not  favor — the right to life from conception to natural death — is neutralized and  undermined by his financial support for “abortion rights” and the “right to  die.” His now-defunct $45 million “Project on Death in America” was used to  promote euthanasia and assisted suicide.***

Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation calls Soros an “extremely  evil person” because of his support for and financing of drug legalization  groups. Writer Jeffrey Kuhner called him the “21st Century Lenin” because of his  extreme left-wing agenda.

Soros ignored most of the attacks until, in November 2010, Glenn Beck used  his Fox News channel program to present an in-depth look at “the Puppet Master” and “one of the most powerful forces in the Progressive Movement.” The scrutiny  led to a backlash against Fox News from Soros and his supporters, leading to  Beck’s departure from the channel. One of the groups attacking Beck was Media  Matters, recipient of $1 million from Soros.

Soros had justified his money to Media Matters by saying in an October 20,  2010 statement:

Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News  accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast. I  am supporting Media Matters in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge  Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy.

Hence, this billionaire hedge fund short seller was openly declaring war on a  private media organization with First Amendment protections under the U.S.  Constitution. His war had an effect – Fox News channel personality Glenn Beck  was eventually forced out.jones ppp2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

This slide from a Van Jones Power Point presentation illustrates the  segments of the progressive movement tied to Obama. They also represent the  organizations, groups and movements financially supported by Soros. Jones  himself has benefited from the Soros largesse.

But our major media would rather talk about the Koch Brothers.

In a major article entitled “Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who  are waging a war against Obama,” New Yorker author Jane Mayer claimed  that the Tea Party and other “right-wing causes” have received more than a  hundred million dollars from the Koch Brothers, David and Charles, who are  libertarians. The figure and characterizations of where their money goes are  disputed. In any case, Soros, by his own estimate, has been spending far  more.

Mayer had written a previous New Yorker article on Soros depicting him as  well-intentioned, not that concerned about money, the victim of scurrilous  attacks, and someone who simply wants his “ideas” to “be heard.” 13 

In his 2002 book, George Soros on Globalization, he himself  estimated that he had “provided foreign aid on a significant scale – roughly  $425 million annually in the last five years – for the promotion of open  societies.” 14 His 2004 book, The Bubble of American  Supremacy, said his foundations had been operating “with total annual  budgets averaging around $450 million for the last decade” and that he had spent “nearly $5 billion over the years.” 15 Other observers say  the amount reaches $8 billion.

While the Koch brothers make money from refining, chemicals, building  materials, and energy production, Soros makes money by manipulating currencies  and betting on economic calamities and catastrophes.

***In protesting a Soros appearance hosted by the University of Toledo, Edwin J.  Nagle III, president and CEO of the Nagle Companies, highlighted “the immoral  and unethical means by which he achieved his wealth.” He added, “I certainly  didn’t see included in his bio the stories on how he collapsed whole country’s  currencies for his own self interests so that many may suffer.”***

Another difference is that the Koch brothers practice and support  capitalism, while Soros is dedicated to undermining the American system.

While Soros has contributed billions of dollars to the transformation of  America, Drummond Pike of the Tides Foundation, a Soros ally, has alone funneled  $1 billion into the effort. His own bio declares, “Tides provides fiscal  sponsorship for over 200 nonprofit projects across the country, launches and  operates green nonprofit centers and has granted more than $1 billion dollars  since 2000 alone.”

Pike, Tides Center founder, was given the ” America’s Future Lifetime  Leadership Award” at the 2011 Campaign for America’s Future conference, a group  whose Institute for America’s Future arm is subsidized by Soros.1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroaddemo allnce Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

Tides Center is now part of the Tides Network, which includes Tides  Foundation, Tides Center, Tides Shared Spaces, and Thoreau Center for  Sustainability. The Tides organizations’ aggregate annual expenditures have  exceeded $200 million since 2007.16

Pike – is the treasurer of the Democracy Alliance. The Washington Post reported  that the Democracy Alliance was formed in 2005 with major backing from  billionaires such as George Soros and Colorado software entrepreneur Tim Gill.  Publicly, however, the group will only say, “The Democracy Alliance Community is  made up of progressive investors/donors and movement leaders committed to a  stronger democracy and more progressive America. Our Partners hail from  business, politics, and philanthropy and provide millions of dollars of support  for progressive causes.”

The Democracy Alliance says:

“Membership in the Alliance is by invitation-only.

“We provide you with personalized products and services to help you navigate  the progressive landscape and make the most of your philanthropy.

“Each Partner receives professional investment recommendations including due  diligence, analysis and ongoing performance monitoring that measures  organizational impact, as well as access to a dynamic community of like-minded  change-makers.

“In addition to the investment products and services, engagement in the  Democracy Alliance includes: invitations to exclusive events and conference  calls, regular communications, such as updates on important issues and the work  of recommended organizations and quarterly newsletters and access to  members-only community website and comprehensive Partner Directory.”

The leadership of the group consists of:

Board of Directors

  • Robert McKay – Chair
  • Steven Phillips – Secretary
  • Drummond Pike – Treasurer
  • Kelly Craighead
  • Quinn Delaney
  • James D. Gollin
  • Nick Hanauer
  • Mary Kay Henry
  • John Stocks
  • Ellen Susman
  • S. Donald Sussman
  • Ted Trimpa
  • Michael Vachon
  • Rob Stein – Founder Emeritus

Michael Vachon is the director of communications at Soros Fund Management, a  spokesman for George Soros, and oversees Soros’ political contributions. He was  previously the director of communications for the Open Society Institute and for  The Commonwealth Fund.

On October 28, 2004, Michael Vachon interrupted a press conference called by  the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) to present evidence that Soros has  been violating campaign finance laws in his multimillion dollar effort to put  Democrat John Kerry in the White House. Vachon interrupted the  question-and-answer period by shouting that the NLPC allegations were false and  that he and a Soros lawyer were there to answer any questions.

NLPC filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)  against Soros, alleging that he may have made illegal expenditures by failing to  fully disclose expenses related to his swing-state speaking tour. This tour  concluded on October 28 with his speech at the National Press Club. The NLPC  noted that, according to FEC filings, Soros reported the expenditures for  two-page newspaper ads he bought in swing states titled “Why We Must Not  Re-Elect President Bush,” and for mailings with a similar theme. But nothing  apparently has been reported for the significant travel, public relations and  the other costs associated with his speaking tour.

NLPC President Peter Flaherty said, “Soros is a hypocrite. First, he  bankrolled the groups that lobbied for passage of McCain-Feingold, but now he’s  pouring millions through the law’s loopholes. And he has apparently violated the  Federal Election Campaign Act by not disclosing the substantial sums he is  spending on this speaking tour.”

In the end, the FEC said that it “found probable cause to believe that a  violation by Soros occurred but in a 3-3 vote declined to authorize the FEC to  file suit against him. The Commission closed the file and took no further  action.” (Mediachecker -> NO accountable per usual – thee or me would be behind bars)

Later the same day, a grieving parent who lost one of his children to a drug  overdose attempted to tell the National Press Club that billionaire George Soros  had to be stopped in his campaign to put John Kerry in the White House. But as  he held up a photograph of his dead child and began to speak, Steve Steiner was  quickly surrounded by security personnel who grabbed and muzzled him. He was  roughed up and led away, suffering a dislocated shoulder, a punch to the back,  threats of more physical violence, and five hours in the hospital undergoing  X-rays and other tests. After the commotion, Soros gave his own speech and  received a National Press Club coffee mug as a token of appreciation.

Interestingly, Soros was represented on that speaking tour by David Fenton,  chairman of a controversial public-relations firm, Fenton Communications, and a  one-time registered foreign agent. Fenton has represented the Soros-funded and has worked for the Heinz Family Foundations. His career began as  a photographer for Liberation News Service, which boasted contacts with  communist guerrilla forces during the Vietnam War. Liberation News Service was  named in honor of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, the phony “nationalist movement” established by Hanoi.

In the past, Fenton has represented the Salvadoran guerrillas, the Nicaraguan  Sandinistas, CIA defector Philip Agee, the Marxist government of Grenada,  communist Angola, the AFL-CIO, and the Campaign for America’s Future. Fenton  represented the “Freedom to Marry” homosexual rights group and hired Cathy  Renna, formerly of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).  Other Fenton clients have included the Ford Foundation, the (Ted) Turner  Foundation, and the Tides Foundation.

While Soros spokesman Vachon had a lot to say in criticism of the NLPC  complaint, he has been silent about alleged Soros involvement in the  LightSquared scandal that is currently unfolding.

Timothy P. Carney of the Washington Examiner reported 17 that Soros invested in the telecom company LightSquared  through a hedge fund, and that many of the nonprofits he finances backed  LightSquared in regulatory and policy disputes. Those four Soros-funded groups  were Free Press, Media Access Project, the New America Foundation, and Public  Knowledge.

This may be an example of how Soros manipulates the system in order  to make money. His investment is followed by agitation or lobbying by  organizations he supports, in order to maximize his investment.

Carney noted that LightSquared is embroiled in controversy because it wants  to construct a mobile broadband network to compete with AT&T, Verizon and  Sprint but that its plan to do so could potentially disrupt or interfere with  the global positioning satellite industry. The GPS is used by private businesses  as well as the U.S. military.

In her article about the Koch Brothers, Jane Mayer had quoted Soros spokesman  Michael Vachon as saying that Soros’s giving is “transparent” and that “none of  his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.” But when  Carney tried to get a response for his article, he was told, “As a matter of  policy, we [Soros & Company] don’t confirm or deny information on our  investments.” (Mediachecker – > ironic or what…)

***Soros Fund Management, which advises the Quantum Funds, recently announced  that it was being converted into a family office to sidestep new Dodd-Frank  financial regulations that require hedge funds to register with the Securities  and Exchange Commission and meet exacting reporting standards. The bill may have  been passed knowing that Soros could easily avoid its rules and regulations.  However, its impact on businesses which have to comply is in the billions of  dollars.***

The “Open Government” Fraud

His close relationship with President Barack Obama can be seen in the  financial and other support provided by his Open Society Institute to the “Open  Government Partnership” project, announced at the United Nations on September  20, 2011, by President Obama and Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, a former  Marxist terrorist.

“We applaud presidents Obama and Rousseff for having launched this  initiative,” the Open Society Foundations said in a statement. “We intend to  work with partners around the world to wholeheartedly support and monitor the  efforts of governments to make these commitments and to fulfill them.”18

***Obama used his U.N. speech the day following the announcement to urge  the world to “harness the power of open societies” in order to fight corruption.  This sounded very much like George Soros himself, who has been spending hundreds  of millions of dollars a year promoting “open societies” in the U.S. and around  the world. His network is called the “Open Society Foundations” and Soros named  one of his foundations the “Open Society Institute.”***

A possible Soros role in the Obama Administration’s curious dealings with  Brazil continues to generate controversy.

***At a time when the Obama administration is resisting the issuing of more  offshore permits for U.S. domestic oil exploration, it is doing just the  opposite with Brazil.***

The administration officially launched an “energy partnership” with Brazil in  August. “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support  to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we  want to be one of your best customers,” Obama had told a group of Brazilian  business leaders in May 2011.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank had proposed $2 billion in loans to the Brazilian  oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as the company  explores for oil. The Ex-Im Bank had approved the loans on April 14, 2009,  during a time when Soros was buying and selling millions of shares in the  company.

***It appears that the Open Government Partnership is making use of U.S.  taxpayer dollars to create the public impression that Obama is open and  accountable to the American people. Soros, who is funding the effort, stands to  gain from this perception.***

The Frank Marshall Davis Cover-up

This emphasis on an “open society” and “open government” is ironic for many  reasons, especially because of the lack of information that was made available  by the Obama campaign to the American people when Obama ran for president.

Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone  who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and  under FBI surveillance for 17 years. The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii  from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship,  almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on  his career path. But Obama, in his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father,  refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

With the release of a 40-page “Unfit for Publication” report attacking Jerome  Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation, which drew upon material uncovered by  Trevor Loudon and America’s Survival, Inc., the Obama campaign acknowledged that  the mysterious “Frank” in Dreams From My Father was in fact Davis.

But the Obama report made no admission that Davis was a communist and didn’t  dispute what had been documented about Davis’s membership in the Communist  Party. Instead, the report tried to put some distance between Obama and Davis  and played down instances in which Obama soaks up Davis’s anti-American thoughts  and pro-communist “poetry.”

But if the relationship were so innocent, why didn’t Obama identify Frank by  his full name in his book and denounce his communist and anti-American views?dreams2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and  Abroad

The answer may lie in the nature of the network that Davis represented. It  was secretive and designed to serve the interests of the Soviet-funded and  controlled Communist Party USA. An investigation of Obama’s relationship with  Davis leads to Davis’s attorney, Harriet Bouslog, another identified member of  the CPUSA. Bouslog was a member-at-large of the executive board of the National  Lawyers Guild, a CPUSA front, at the 1956 and 1957 conventions of the NLG. 19 She also represented Harry Bridges, a secret CPUSA member  who served as president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union  (ILWU).

All of this is relevant to Soros because of his support for organizations  closely tied to this network. Perhaps the most obvious example is the Center for  Constitutional Rights (CCR), which works hand-in-glove with the National Lawyers  Guild. The CCR is a major recipient of Soros funds.1x1.trans Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home and Abroad

The CCR, in fact, is regarded as an off-shoot of the National Lawyers Guild,  which was once officially designated a communist front and still remains the  American affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the  old Soviet front.

To show their solidarity with the Marxist terror networks that bombed police  stations and killed police officers in the 1970s and 1980s, the CCR’s board and  staff took out a full-page ad in a November 2010 “commemorative solidarity  booklet” distributed at a memorial service for the dead Communist terrorist  Marilyn Buck. It described her as a “fierce warrior, human rights defender and  fighter for justice.”

***A member of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army, which  carried out a robbery of a Brinks truck in 1981 that killed two policemen and a  security guard, Buck had been serving a prison term in California for her  involvement in a long list of terrorist crimes. These included the Brinks heist  and helping convicted killer Joanne Chesimard escape from prison. Chesimard fled  to Cuba, where she is now living under the protection of the Castro brothers.  She killed a New Jersey State Trooper and the FBI is offering $1 million for  information leading to her apprehension.***

When I inquired of the CCR why they had hailed Buck in such flattering terms,  a press representative by the name of Alison Roh Park said, “We recognized her  as a human rights leader,” adding, “There are hundreds of thousands of people  who did celebrate her life.”

If this is true, then we have a much bigger internal security problem than  anyone realizes. It means that, in addition to Islamic terrorists, revolutionary  Marxism and its adherents still pose a threat. (Mediachecker – > yet it’s the Tea Party and other conservative groups who are singled out by the DC/IRS). Significantly, Weather  Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn also paid tribute to Buck in  the “commemorative solidarity booklet.” Several members of the Weather  Underground, including Linda Evans, and two Puerto Rican terrorists were at the  service in person, paying tribute to their “comrade” and “sister.”

***Curiously, however, Soros not only ignores this threat by helps finance it.  Former Weather Underground terrorist Bernardine Dohrn appeared at functions  sponsored by his Open Society Institute. Linda Evans accepted a Soros grant.***

As part of this effort to threaten and undermine America internally, Soros  vigorously promotes the “rights” of criminals. Soros has provided the bulk of  the money behind a well-organized “criminals lobby” in the U.S. that is working  to make “prisoners’ rights” into the next big cause of the liberal-left.

The book, The New Jim Crow, is by Michelle Alexander, a former ACLU  official who won a 2005 “Soros Justice Fellowship.” The thesis is that the  criminal justice system is racist, that criminals deserve to be treated more  leniently and that even convicted felons ought to have the right to vote. The  acknowledgements section of the Alexander book gives special thanks to the Open  Society Institute of George Soros.

Michael P. Tremoglie has written a report for ASI in which he notes:

If there is one issue in America that represents the fault line between  liberals and conservatives, left and right, communist and capitalist, the middle  class and the liberal intelligentsia – it is that of crime and punishment. Yet,  the line is becoming distorted as liberals exploit libertarian fears of big  government and conservative fears of being labeled racist.

He writes that some conservatives “have embraced the idea that incapacitation  and deterrence do not work. By doing so, they have unwittingly accepted the  doctrine of Marxist criminology which hypothesizes that criminal behavior is a  function of society.”

Tremoglie adds:

Marxist criminology sheds light on one of the major differences between  liberals and conservatives when it comes to criminal justice – the idea of  deterrence. Marx (and Engels) rejected the deterrence doctrine. Instead they  hypothesized that crime will only be eliminated by changing society’s social  system.

This is what Alexander and people like Angela Davis believe. Davis is leading  a movement to abolish prisons entirely. She is a former Black Panther and was  for a time during the 1970′s an FBI fugitive. She was acquitted of murder  charges after her capture and trial. She was also a Communist Party candidate  vice presidential candidate during the 1980′s.

People like Alexander and Davis use the racism argument to validate their  cause that prisons should be abolished. Their justification is the racial  disproportionate percentage argument, which is fallacious.

There is a disproportionately greater percentage of African –Americans who  are professional athletes in relation to the percentage of African-Americans in  the general population. Does this mean that more millionaire black athletes are  a sign of a “racial caste system?”

There are also a disproportionate percentage of men in prison in relation to  their percentage of the total population. Is this an indication that the  criminal justice system is a sexist caste system?

Tremoglie also takes note of who is behind the Alexander book:

Alexander’s book was published by The New Press. According to its website The  New Press was “established in 1990 as a major alternative to the large,  commercial publishers, The New Press is a not-for-profit publishing house  operated editorially in the public interest. It is committed to publishing in  innovative ways works of educational, cultural, and community value that,  despite their intellectual merits, may be deemed insufficiently profitable by  commercial publishers. Like the Public Broadcasting System and National Public  Radio as they were originally conceived, The New Press aims to provide ideas and  viewpoints under-represented in the mass media.”

The Board of Directors reads like a Who’s Who of leftwing activism. Among the  Board of Directors are:

  • BARBARA EHRENREICH, Honorary Chairwoman, Democratic Socialists of America  and an author and columnist
  • FRANCES FOX PIVEN, also an Honorary Chairwoman, Democratic Socialists of  America
  • MICHAEL RATNER, President, Center for Constitutional Rights. The Center was  a leading advocate for freeing Lynne Stewart who was convicted in 2005 of  providing material support to terrorist

The New Press authors include William Ayers, founder of the Weather  Underground, and Marxist Noam Chomsky.

A Private Foreign Policy

Aryeh Neier, president of the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations, began  his career with the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch before  coming to the Soros network. In talking about this transition, he wrote in his  book, Taking Liberties:

I knew I could do many things that mattered to me through a foundation with  such large resources. What I did not realize was that George Soros was in the  process of becoming, as he has been described, the only private citizen in the  United States – or, perhaps the world – with his own foreign policy and the  capacity to implement it. He is unique in possessing the resources, the  institutional mechanisms, the status, and the will to promote his policy on a  global scale. 20

This extraordinary statement puts Soros in violation of the Logan Act. The  Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority  of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any  correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or  agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United  States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under  this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall  not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any  foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may  have sustained from such government or any of its agents or  subjects.

A Congressional Research Service report, “Conducting Foreign Relations  Without Authority: The Logan Act,” states:

The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without  authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign  governments. There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its more  than 200 year history. However, there have been a number of judicial references  to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a point of challenge  concerning dealings with foreign officials. Although attempts have been made to  repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used  against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the  United States.21

Writing in a Forbes article entitled “Are George Soros’ Billions  Compromising U.S. Foreign Policy?,” Richard Miniter said:

Soros’ foreign policy is different. He pursues his own vision, undisturbed by  his effect on other nations or the interests of his own. It is hard for foreign  governments to hold him accountable and his goals and methods are usually kept  secret. While the risks of Soros’ foreign policy to the U.S. are clear, they are  clearly ignored by Washington policy makers and the White House press corps.  Why? 22

Miniter’s answer is that because Soros has been perceived as an  anti-communist by some and a left-wing Democrat by others, commentators on both  sides of the ideological spectrum have refrained from attacking him.

He goes on:

Soros is hated because many Eastern Europeans and Central Asians believe that  he is using his money to subvert their political systems. Rightly or wrongly,  this view tends to promote anti-Americanism. And it gives dictators a talking  point to use against American diplomats.

In fact, however, Miniter notes that “Soros does not have a particularly  pro-America foreign policy, even though he does champion selected human-rights  issues and bring down dictators.” He notes that Soros, in his book The Age  of Fallibility, writes that “the main obstacle to a stable and just world  order is the United States.” Miniter explains, “He opposes America’s war on  terror and sees America’s global leadership as a net negative for the  world.”

In his book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, Soros attacks “neocons” and the Project for the New American Century, a group he describes as “a neoconservative think tank and policy advocacy group.”

Neocons are mostly anti-communists who left the Democratic Party. Critics  charge that neocons are motivated by a desire to protect Israel. Soros seems to  be attacking neocons for their perceived role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq  war. Yet, ***in 1999 the neocons supported the NATO war on Yugoslavia launched by  President Clinton. It was a war which did not benefit America, Israel or NATO.  It only benefited the Muslim terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA),  which had links to Osama bin Laden.***

***Like the neocons, Soros supported the Clinton Administration’s military  intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which established the Muslim state of  Kosovo. Congress did not authorize the Kosovo war under the War Powers Act.  Clinton waged the war through executive orders without approval from  Congress.***

Soros opposed the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, which was  authorized by Congress and was designed in part to prevent the radicalization of  the region by the expansionist Arab socialist Saddam Hussein regime. The war was  based on questionable intelligence but the result of the intervention, the  establishment of a democratic Iraq, could be some as beneficial to the region in  the long term. Still, the invasion of Iraq was a major gamble by Bush.

Soros opposes unilateral U.S. military action and wrote Toward a New  World Order: The Future of NATO, back in 1993. He figured that NATO could  take on the military responsibilities of the “New World Order” until the U.N.  was ready to do the job. The Soros plan was to make NATO, once an anti-Communist  alliance, into a military arm of the U.N. This happened in Kosovo and then  Libya, where Obama used NATO to enforce the U.N.’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. NATO, which came into being through a treaty as a defensive military  force, has been illegally transformed without the benefit of a treaty into an  offensive military force. Although Soros strongly supports the concept, the “Responsibility to Protect” was mostly the work of the World Federalist  Movement, a group dedicated to world government by strengthening the United  Nations system.

His 2004 book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, was subtitled, “The  Costs of Bush’s War in Iraq.” ***He wasn’t concerned about the costs associated  with the illegal intervention in Kosovo. And he doesn’t object to forcing U.S.  taxpayers to spend more on the U.N.***

The National Security Archive

He has put enormous resources into an organization called the National  Security Archive, which describes itself as “an independent non-governmental  research institute and library located at The George Washington  University…[which] collects and publishes declassified documents obtained  through the Freedom of Information Act” and “serves as a repository of  government records on a wide range of topics pertaining to the national  security, foreign, intelligence, and economic policies of the United States.”23 The group says, “The Archive’s $2.5 million yearly budget  comes from publication revenues, contributions from individuals and grants from  foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation,  the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight  Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Open  Society Institute. As a matter of policy, the Archive seeks no U.S. government  funding.”

An example of this was the 2002 book, The Pinochet File, published  by the New Press, the same controversial left-wing publisher cited earlier.  Written by Peter Kornbluh, director of the National Security Archive’s Chile  Documentation Project, it purports to be an analysis of U.S. intelligence  support for the anti-communist government of Chile after the overthrow of  Chilean Marxist President Salvador Allende. The acknowledgements section of the  book notes the author’s deep involvement with individuals from the Marxist  Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

This is critical information because IPS provided cover for such figures as  Chilean Marxist Orlando Letelier, a paid agent of Cuba assassinated in  Washington, D.C. in 1976 in a car bomb explosion tied to the Pinochet regime.  This fact alone helps explain why Kornbluh would want to investigate and “expose” the U.S.-Chile relationship. This act of terrorism, which also took the  life of Ronni Moffitt of the IPS, was the apparent result of an increasingly  desperate and isolated regime in Chile that believed it had been betrayed by the  United States after initial support for the anti-Allende coup.

***Kornbluh gives thanks to many figures, including Robert Borosage, then with  the IPS; Saul Landau of IPS; and Morton Halperin, who had been working in the “Policy Planning” Department at the Department of State under Madeleine  Albright.pinochet2 Obamas Master George Soros: Supporting Americas Enemies at Home  and Abroad

***The one-sided treatment of Chile and the world’s first “freely-elected  Marxist president,” as Allende was called, was not legitimate scholarship. It  was propaganda designed to prevent the U.S. from countering other Marxist  experiments in Latin America. This kind of material has had the desired and  intended effect – making it practically impossible for U.S. intelligence  agencies to assume an anti-communist posture in subsequent events, such as  keeping Marxist Hugo Chavez from taking and consolidating power in  Venezuela.***

Efforts like those of the National Security Archive have another intended  effect – to suggest to the media that the activities of Cuba and other hostile  foreign intelligence services are to be ignored or dismissed in importance. In  his book, The Prince of Darkness, the late journalist Robert Novak  described how the Washington Post censored one of his columns concerning the  Washington, D.C. activities of Letelier. Novak said the Post’s editorial page  editor, Philip Geyelin, “spiked” the column because of “displeasure with the  column’s content” about Letelier’s Cuban connections. Novak had received  Letelier’s incriminating briefcase papers, recovered after his death. They  showed Letelier getting money from Cuba.

The story is worth retelling now because America’s enemies continue  to be very well organized in Washington, D.C., especially in regard to the “new  Cuba” — Venezuela.

***I had the opportunity soon after I came to Washington to understand  first-hand why a paper like the Post shies away from exposing the activities of  communist agents of influence in the nation’s capital.

****Lawrence Stern, the national news editor of the paper, passed away in 1979,  and Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media asked me to attend and observe his memorial  service. I was astounded when a man identified as Teofilo Acosta was introduced  and told the service: “I’m from Cuba. I am Marxist-Leninist. I am human. Larry  Stern was my friend, one of my best friends. I loved him.” Acosta was publicly  known as a First Secretary in the Cuban Interests Section that has been set up  inside the Czech Embassy in Washington. In reality, he was a Cuban intelligence  agent.

***Hence, one reason the Post shies away from exposing the activities of  communist agents is that their reporters and editors may associate with them.  The husband of Post reporter Dana Priest works for the Center for International  Policy (CIP), a far-left and Soros-funded group created with the assistance of  Orlando Letelier.

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the Washington Post published  excerpts of Top Secret America, a book based on a series of articles in  the Post by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin. The book refers to “the new  national security state,” meaning the U.S. military, the CIA, the FBI, and other  public entities and even private contractors engaged in defense or intelligence  work. One waits in vain for the Post to investigate and expose not only the  international communist network, which still exists, but the strategic plans of  the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups that want to destroy us.

“More than a dozen Washington Post journalists spent two years developing Top  Secret America,” we were told.

The answer to the expansion of the “national security and intelligence  system,” which is presented as a major problem in the work of Priest and Arkin,  can be found in the activism of Priest’s husband, the silent partner in the  series, a left-winger by the name of William Goodfellow. This is the open “secret” that the Post wants desperately to conceal from its readers. It leads  to the exposure of the far-left networks behind much of the “real news” we see,  read, and hear in the mainstream media.

Goodfellow runs the Soros-funded Center for International Policy (CIP), which “is in the vanguard of the movement to develop an alternative foreign and  defense policy based on international cooperation, demilitarization and respect  for human rights,” its newsletter proclaims.

Its other goals include:

  • Finding “new ways to encourage cooperation” with the Castro dictatorship.
  • “Reining in the CIA.”
  • “Ending the war in Afghanistan,” and
  • “Building public support for peace.”

William M. Arkin, a columnist and reporter with The Washington Post and since 1998, is the co-author of the book and the series and “has worked on the subject of government secrecy and national security affairs  for more than 30 years,” his bio says.

In fact, he has made it his mission to expose the means by which the United  States defends itself, in order to disarm the nation in the face of threats from  the old Soviet Union and international communism and now from global Islam. In  the 1980s he worked for the IPS.

The IPS affiliation is not noted in an old Post bio of Arkin but it is  mentioned that he “co-authored Nuclear Battlefields in 1985, revealing the  locations of all U.S. and foreign nuclear bases worldwide” and that the book was “condemned by the Reagan Administration” for obviously threatening the security  and safety of those weapons. Publicity for the book’s release was handled by  Fenton Communications and its president, David Fenton, later to become a paid  agent of George Soros when he campaigned in 2004 to defeat George Bush for  re-election.

***Exposing communist influence activities is not on the agenda of the National  Security Archive or Soros. Indeed, there’s no evidence that Soros has any  interest in funding information collection efforts to obtain and disseminate  congressional hearings and reports on domestic and foreign threats to the  U.S.****

Anatomy of a Smear

The Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center, headed by Morton Halperin,  organized opposition to John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and was  caught, as part of the effort, paying money to a political consultant, Robert B.  Creamer, who had pleaded guilty to bank fraud and a failure to pay federal  income taxes. He served time in prison for these offenses. This smear of Bolton  helped prevent his confirmation and eventually resulted in his recess  appointment by President George W. Bush to the post.

Creamer, a prominent Democratic political consultant, is the husband of  Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky. He is the author of a 628-page book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, that describes how the  Democrats can become the permanent majority party by passing a national health  care bill and giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. He was invited to the White  House for the first state dinner in November 2009.

***Creamer’s book is full of praise for Obama and even reprints Obama’s 2004  Democratic National Convention keynote address. The acknowledgements section  describes how he, like Obama, was influenced by Saul Alinsky, described as “the  legendary community organizer.” Book endorsements are featured from Obama  adviser David Axelrod; Greg Galluzo of the Gamaliel Foundation, which originally  sponsored Barack Obama’s work as a community organizer in Chicago; and Andy  Stern of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Ironically, Soros talks frequently about promoting an “open society” when  much about his own background remains hidden. Born in Hungary, it has been  reported that he became an American citizen. claims, “He is a  naturalized American citizen. Since 1961.” 24 This claim  may be based on a Business Week account from 1993 which reported, “George Soros  became a naturalized American citizen in New York on Dec. 18, 1961, according to  the Immigration & Naturalization Service.” 25 But the  publication went on:

His Americanism, like his Judaism, is not something that Soros openly  embraces.

It is not clear how the phrase “according to the Immigration &  Naturalization Service” means that the publication verified Soros’s citizenship.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency does not provide  that data directly to anyone except the person being naturalized or the original  petitioner. 26

On the other hand, a person can lose his U.S. citizenship under certain  conditions, including being convicted for an act of treason against the United  States:

Treason is a serious crime, and the Constitution defines the requirements for  convicting someone of treason. Treason is waging a violent war against the  United States in cooperation with a foreign country or any organized group. It  includes assisting or aiding any foreign country or organization in taking over  or destroying this country including abolishing the Constitution. Treason also  consists of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the US government or of  betraying our government into the hands of a foreign power. If you are caught  and convicted of treason, you can pretty much count on losing your US  citizenship as well as serving lots of jail time.27

It would be unfair to call Soros, who is Jewish, a Nazi sympathizer.  Nevertheless, during a December 20, 1998, interview with 60 Minutes, Soros  acknowledged that as a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Hungary, his identity was  protected and that he actually assisted in confiscating property from Jews as  they were being shipped off to death camps. Asked by interviewer Steve Kroft if  he had any sense of guilt over what he did, Soros replied, “no.”

In the interview, Soros went on to compare his predicament at the time to the  operation of economic markets, saying, “if I weren’t there, of course, I wasn’t  doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away anyhow.” Soros  then insisted he was only a “spectator” and had “no role in taking away that  property.” That is why, he said, “I had no sense of guilt.”

***While Soros has a lot to answer for, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) is  making use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to create the public impression that Obama  has been open and accountable to the American people, despite the evidence to  the contrary.

***The Global Integrity group is managing the project and says that it is “supported by a diverse mix of charitable foundations, governments, multilateral  institutions, and the private sector.”

The list includes:

  • Center for International Private Enterprise  (CIPE), an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • Inter-American Development Bank
  • National Endowment for Democracy
  • Open Society Institute (Soros-funded)
  • Open Society Justice Fund (also  Soros-funded)
  • Sunrise Foundation
  • U.S. Department of State
  • Wallace Global Fund
  • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • The World Bank

Google is listed separately as having provided $350,000.

OGP says that it is “overseen by a multi-stakeholder International Steering  Committee comprised of government and civil society representatives” that  includes Tom Blanton of the Soros-funded National Security Archive.

***Incredibly, the National Security Archive was among several organizations  presenting Obama with an “anti-secrecy award” at a ceremony last March that was  closed to the public and the press. Politico reported, “…Obama met quietly in  the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National  Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy  Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice  McDermott of, without disclosing the meeting on his public  schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.”

***Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Dalglish said  that Obama was given the award for “encouraging agencies to release information  to the public…”

Even some left-wingers were offended by this, saying that the award should be  rescinded and that “Such false awards only stand to backfire and hurt the cause  of open government.”

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the founder and president of the National  Security Whistleblowers Coalition, posted a video about the Obama award,  exposing funding for some of the pro-Obama groups from George Soros and  others.



3 Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve,  page 51.

4 A September 27, 2011, Politico article by Charles  Hoskinson noted that CAP endorses some of the defense cuts “identified as dire” in an analysis by the staff of the House Armed Services Committee.

5 Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for  Rights, page xxi.

6  The Essential CIA

By Ernest W. Lefever , Posted: Friday, January 10, 2003 . ARTICLE . American  Legion Magazine. January 10, 2003


9 Unpublished, made available to America’s Survival,  Inc.





14 George Soros on Globalization, page 21.

15 The Bubble of American Supremacy, page  132.




19 Communist Legal Subversion : the Role of the  Communist Lawyer, 1959, page 32.

20 Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle  for Rights, page xxxiv.








Read more: Obama’s Master George Soros: Supporting America’s Enemies at Home and Abroad | The Soros Files Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike

  • Multi-billionaire funder of leftwing causes and groups
  • Founder of the Open Society Institute
  • The prime mover behind the Democratic “Shadow Party” network

New York hedge fund manager George Soros is one of the most politically powerful individuals on earth. Since the mid-1980s in particular, he has used his immense influence to help reconfigure the political landscapes of several countries around the world—in some cases playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government for years, even decades. Vis à vis the United States, a strong case can be made for the claim that Soros today affects American politics and culture more profoundly that any other living person.
Much of Soros’s influence derives from his $13 billion personal fortune,1 which is further leveraged by at least another $25 billion in investor assets controlled by his firm, Soros Fund Management.2 An equally significant source of Soros’s power, however, is his passionate messianic zeal. Soros views himself as a missionary with something of a divine mandate to transform the world and its institutions into something better—as he sees it. Over the years, Soros has given voice to this sense of grandiosity many times and in a variety of different ways. In his 1987 book The Alchemy of Finance, for instance, he wrote: “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance—to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein.”3 Expanding on this theme in his 1991 book Underwriting Democracy, Soros said: “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood,” fantasies which “I wanted to indulge … to the extent that I could afford.”4 In a June 1993 interview with The Independent, Soros, who is an atheist,5 said he saw himself as “some kind of god, the creator of everything.”6 In an interview two years later, he portrayed himself as someone who shared numerous attributes with “God in the Old Testament” — “[Y]ou know, like invisible. I was pretty invisible. Benevolent. I was pretty benevolent. All-seeing. I tried to be all-seeing.”7 Soros told his biographer Michael Kaufman that his “goal” was nothing less ambitious than “to become the conscience of the world” by using his charitable foundations,8 which will be discussed at length in this pamphlet, to bankroll organizations and causes that he deems worthwhile.
“I realized [as a young man] that it’s money that makes the world go round,” says Soros, “so I might as well make money.… But having made it, I could then indulge my social concerns.”9 Invariably, those concerns center around a desire to change the world generally—and America particularly—into something new, something consistent with his vision of “social justice.” Claiming to be “driven” by “illusions, or perhaps delusions, of grandeur,”10 Soros has humorously described himself as “a kind of nut who wants to have an impact” on the workings of the world.11 The billionaire’s longtime friend Byron Wien, currently the vice chairman of Blackstone Advisory Services, offers this insight: “You must understand [Soros] thinks he’s been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems. The proof is that he has been so successful at making so much [money]. He therefore thinks he has a responsibility to give money away”—to causes that are consistent with his values and agendas.12
George Soros was born to Tividar and Erzebat Schwartz, non-practicing Jews, in Budapest, Hungary on August 12, 1930. Tivadar was an attorney by profession, but the consuming passion of his life was the promotion of Esperanto—an artificial, “universal” language created during the 1880s in hopes that people worldwide might be persuaded to drop their native tongues and speak Esperanto instead—thereby, in theory at least, minimizing their nationalist impulses while advancing intercultural harmony. In 1936, Tivadar changed his family surname to Soros—a future-tense Esperanto verb meaning “will soar.”13
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, Tivadar decided to split up his family so as to minimize the chance that all its members would be killed together. For each of them—his wife and two sons—he purchased forged papers identifying them as Christians; paid government officials to conceal his family’s Jewish heritage from the German and Hungarian fascists; and bribed Gentile families to take them into their homes. As for George in particular, the father paid a Hungarian government official named Baumbach to claim George as his Christian godson, “Sandor Kiss,” and to let the boy live with him in Budapest. One of Baumbach’s duties was to deliver deportation notices to Hungary’s Jews, confiscating their property and turning it over to Germany. Young George Soros sometimes accompanied the official on his rounds.14 Many years later, in December 1998, a CBS interviewer would ask Soros whether he had ever felt any guilt about his association with Baumbach during that period. Soros replied: “… I was only a spectator … I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”15
Soros today recalls the German occupation of Hungary as “probably the happiest year of my life.” “For me,” he elaborates, “it was a very positive experience. It’s a strange thing because you see incredible suffering around you and the fact you are in considerable danger yourself. But you’re fourteen years old and you don’t believe that it can actually touch you. You have a belief in yourself. You have a belief in your father. It’s a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”16
In 1947 the Soros family relocated from Hungary to England, where George attended the London School of Economics (LSE) (mediachecker -> LSE was founded by the Fabians). There, he was exposed to the works of the Viennese-born philosopher Karl Popper, who taught at LSE and whom Soros would later call his “spiritual mentor.”17 Though Soros never studied directly under Popper, he read the latter’s works and submitted some essays to him for review and comment. Most notably, Popper’s 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies introduced Soros to the concept of an “open society,” a theme that would play a central role in Soros’s thought and activities for the rest of his life.18
The term “open society” was originally coined in 1932 by the French philosopher Henri Louis Bergson, to describe societies whose moral codes were founded upon “universal” principles seeking to enhance the welfare of all mankind—as opposed to “closed” societies that placed self-interest above any concern for other nations and cultures.19 Popper readily embraced this concept and expanded upon it. In his view, the open society was a place that permitted its citizens the right to criticize and change its institutions as they saw fit; he rejected the imposed intellectual conformity, central planning, and historical determinism of Marxist doctrine.20 By Popper’s reckoning, a society was “closed”—and thus undesirable—if it assumed that it was in any way superior to other societies. Likewise, any belief system or individual claiming to be in possession of “ultimate truth” was an “enemy” of the open society as well. Popper viewed all knowledge as conjectural rather than certain, as evolving rather than fixed.
Thus, by logical extension, Popper did not share the American founders’ confident assertion that certain truths were “self-evident,” and that certain rights—such as the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as referenced in the Declaration of Independence—were “unalienable” and thus not subject to doubt, because they had been granted to mankind by the ultimate authority, the “Creator.”21 We shall see that George Soros, as he grew to maturity, would likewise reject the founders’ premise. Indeed Soros would harbor great disdain for modern-day American political figures who displayed unshakable confidence in their own culture’s nobility, and who embraced the tenets of the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution as timeless, immutable truths. To Soros, “Popper’s greatest contribution to philosophy” was his teaching that “the ultimate truth remains permanently beyond our reach.”22
After graduating in 1952 from LSE, Soros joined the London brokerage firm Singer and Friedlander, where he became proficient in international arbitrage, which he defines as “buying securities in one country and selling them in another.”23 Four years later, he relocated to New York to work as a stock trader on Wall Street. Because Soros “did not particularly care for” the “commercial, crass” United States, he had no intention of settling permanently in America. Rather, he had devised a “five-year plan” to save some $500,000 and then return to Europe.24 His plan changed, however, when he found work as a portfolio manager at the investment bank Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder Inc., where his career—as if to fulfill the prophecy embedded in the family surname his father had adopted two decades earlier—soared to new heights.
In 1959 Soros moved to Greenwich Village, New York, where early stirrings of the Sixties counterculture were already being felt. In September 1960 he married Annaliese Witschak, who would be his wife until the couple divorced 23 years later.25 In 1961 Soros became a U.S. citizen, and two years later he and Annaliese had their first child, a son. In the Village, it is likely that Soros was exposed to the ideas of the prominent socialist ***Michael Harrington*** –, who mingled with fellow radicals and socialists almost nightly at a tavern situated barely a stone’s throw from Soros’s residence.26 In 1962 Harrington wrote The Other America, a book lamenting the fact that a substantial “invisible” underclass continued to exist even as the country at large prospered, and suggesting that a “war on poverty” was needed to rectify this. President Lyndon Johnson read and admired the book, and its ideas greatly influenced his Great Society policies of government-imposed redistribution of wealth.
Another prominent Village personality of the era—the poet, New Left radical, and psychedelic-drug guru Allen Ginsberg—would eventually become a “lifelong friend” of Soros. Though Soros may not have formally met Ginsberg until around 1980—long after his years in the Village—the billionaire today credits Ginsberg for having opened his eyes to the benefits of drug legalization, which has been one of Soros’s pet projects throughout his philanthropic career.27
In 1969 Soros established the “Double Eagle Fund” for Bleichroeder with $4 million in capital, including $250,000 of his own money. Four years later, Soros and his assistant at Bleichroeder, Jim Rogers, set up a private partnership called Soros Fund Management. They subsequently changed the Double Eagle Fund’s name to The Soros Fund. In 1979 they renamed it again—The Quantum Fund; its value grew to $381 million by 1980, and more than $1 billion by 1985.28


It was in 1979 that Soros began testing the proverbial waters of philanthropy. Five years later he launched, in the country of his birth, the first of his many Open Society Foundations—named after the concept advanced by Karl Popper—to help “build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens.”29 But it was not until 1987, the year he opened his Moscow office, that Soros began to disseminate truly large amounts of money to various groups and causes. “My spending rose from $3 million in 1987 to more than $300 million a year by 1992,” he said.30 During this period, Soros established a series of foundations throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia.31 He happily observed that because of his extraordinary wealth, major political figures “suddenly became very interested in seeing me…. [M]y  influence increased.”32 Today Soros’s Open Society Foundations are active in more than 70 countries around the world.33
In 1993 Soros established the flagship of the Soros foundation network—the New York City-based Open Society Institute (OSI). While OSI’s philanthropy extends to a number of nations around the world, it is chiefly devoted to injecting capital into American groups and causes. In his book Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros explains that the “open society” which he seeks to advance by means of philanthropy, “stands for freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, social justice, and social responsibility as a universal idea.”34 But of course, abstract concepts like these, draped in vestments of lofty rhetoric, can mean radically different things to different people.
Entrusted with the task of defining the foregoing terms for the Open Society Institute, and for articulating the Institute’s agendas from the outset, was ***Aryeh Neier***, , whom Soros appointed to serve as president not only of OSI, but of the entire Soros Foundation Network. Thirty-four years earlier, Neier had created the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which became the largest and most important radical group of the 1960s. SDS aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and undermine the nation’s war efforts in Vietnam. (A particularly militant faction of SDS would later break away to form the Weather Underground, a notorious domestic terror organization with a Marxist-Leninist agenda.) Following his stint with SDS, Neier worked fifteen years for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—including eight years as its national executive director. After that, he spent twelve years as executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), an organization he founded in 1978.35


Both the ACLU and HRW have long promoted one of the central contentions of Soros’s Open Society Institute: the notion that America is institutionally an oppressive nation and a habitual violator of human rights both at home and abroad—indeed, the very antithesis of the type of “open society” Soros reveres. Consider first the ACLU, whose advisory board once included the former Weather Underground terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.36 The ACLU has opposed virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government, depicting those measures not only as excessively harsh and invasive generally, but also as discriminatory against Muslims in particular.37 Moreover, the organization has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to limit the government’s ability to locate, monitor, and apprehend terrorist operatives. It consistently depicts American society as one that is rife with intractable racial injustice. And it works tirelessly to protect illegal immigrants against “governmental abuse and discrimination.”38 These (and many other) ACLU activities and policy positions are entirely consistent with those of Aryeh Neier and George Soros, as evidenced by the fact that between 1999 and 2008, OSI awarded $8.69 million in grants to the ACLU Foundation.39
Neier’s other training ground, Human Rights Watch, has a long history of pointing an accusatory finger at America’s allegedly numerous transgressions. Most notably, HRW has derided the U.S. war on terror as a foolhardy endeavor rooted in blindness to the realization that terrorism stems, in large measure, from America’s failure “to promote fundamental rights around the world.”40 In a March 2007 speech, HRW executive director Kenneth Roth charged that the United States, by routinely “using torture and inhumane treatment” to deal with its foes, had “severely damaged its credibility when it comes to promoting human rights” in other nations.41 Between 2000 and 2008, the Open Society Institute awarded grants and other contributions to HRW that collectively totaled $6,386,477.42 Then, in September 2010, Soros announced that he would soon be giving HRW another $100 million.43 Notably, Soros himself once served on HRW’s Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee.44
OSI’s total assets today exceed $1.9 billion. Each year, the Institute awards scores of millions of dollars in grants to organizations that—like the ACLU and HRW—promote worldviews and objectives accordant with those of George Soros.45 Following is a sampling of the major agendas advanced by groups that Soros and OSI support financially. Listed under each category heading are a few OSI donees fitting that description.
Organizations that accuse America of violating the civil rights and liberties of many of its residents:

  • The Arab American Institute impugns many of the “sweeping” and “unreasonable” post-9/11 counterterrorism measures that have unfairly “targeted Arab Americans.”46
  • The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has persuaded the political leadership in more than 400 American cities and counties to pledge noncompliance with the anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act, on grounds that the legislation tramples on people’s civil liberties.47

Organizations that depict America as a nation whose enduring racism must be counterbalanced by racial and ethnic preferences in favor of nonwhites:

Organizations that specifically portray the American criminal-justice system as racist and inequitable:

  • The Sentencing Project asserts that prison-sentencing patterns discriminate against nonwhites, and seeks “to reduce the reliance on incarceration.”52
  • Critical Resistance contends that crime stems from “inequality and powerlessness,” which can be rectified through wholesale redistribution of wealth.53
  • The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights charges that criminal laws “are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased.”54

Organizations that call for massive social change, and for the recruitment and training of activist leaders to help foment that change:

Organizations that disparage capitalism while promoting a dramatic expansion of social-welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes:

  • The Center for Economic and Policy Research asserts that “the welfare state has softened the impact” of “the worst excesses and irrationalities of a market system” and its “injustices.”63
  • The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advocates greater tax expenditures on such assistance programs as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, and low-income housing initiatives.64
  • The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights was founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones. This anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities,” coupled with America’s allegedly imperishable racism, have “led to despair and homelessness.”65
  • The Emma Lazarus Fund: In 1996 George Soros said he was “appalled” by the recently signed welfare-reform law that empowered states to limit legal immigrants’ access to public assistance. In response to this “mean-spirited attack on immigrants,” he launched an Open Society Institute project known as the Emma Lazarus Fund and endowed it with $50 million.66

Organizations that support socialized medicine in the United States:

  • Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a vast network of organizations supporting, ideally, a “single-payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.67 During the political debate over “Obamacare” in 2009 and 2010, HCAN’s strategy was to try to achieve such a system incrementally, first by implementing a “public option”—i.e., a government insurance agency to “compete” with private insurers, so that Americans would be “no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.”68 Because such an agency would not need to show a profit in order to remain in business, and because it could tax and regulate its private competitors in whatever fashion it pleased, this “public option” would inevitably force private insurers out of the industry. In August 2009, Soros pledged to give HCAN $5 million to promote its campaign for reform.69

Organizations that strive to move American politics to the left by promoting the election of progressive political candidates:

  • Project Vote is the voter-mobilization arm of the notoriously corrupt ACORN, whose voter-registration drives and get-out-the-vote initiatives have been marred by massive levels of fraud and corruption.70
  • Catalist seeks “to help progressive organizations realize … electoral success by building and operating a robust national voter database.”71
  • The Brennan Center for Justice aims to “fully restore voting rights following criminal conviction”72—significant because research shows that ex-felons are far likelier to vote for Democratic political candidates than for Republicans.73
  • The Progressive States Network seeks to “pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators.”74
  • The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, to which George Soros personally donated $8,000 in 2010, works “to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office … more often.”75

Organizations that promote leftist ideals and worldviews in the media and the arts:

In May 2011, the Media Research Center reported that from 2003-2001, Soros had spent more than $48 million “funding media properties, including the infrastructure of news — journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations.” Among the beneficiaries of Soros’s money were such entities as: NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Columbia Journalism Review, ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Investigative Reporting, The Lens, the Columbia School of Journalism, the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Organization of News Ombudsmen, National Public Radio, the Pacifica Foundation, The American Prospect Inc. (the owner and publisher of The American Prospect magazine), the Nation Institute, the Media Fund, the Independent Media Center, the Independent Media Institute, Media Matters For America, and Free Press. Below are some brief descriptions of a few of these organizations:

  • The American Prospect, Inc. is the owner and publisher of The American Prospect magazine, which tries to “counteract the growing influence of conservative media.”76
  • Free Press is a “media reform” organization co-founded by Robert McChesney, who calls for “a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system” and to “rebuil[d] the entire society on socialist principles.”77
  • The Independent Media Institute aims to “change the world78 via projects like AlterNet, an online news magazine calling itself “a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision.”79
  • The Nation Institute operates synergistically with the far-left Nation magazine, which works “to extend the reach of progressive ideas” into the American mainstream.80
  • The Pacifica Foundation owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and anti-capitalism.
  • Media Matters For America: For a number of years, the Open Society Institute gave indirect funding—filtering its grants first through other Soros-backed operations81—to this “progressive research and information center” which “monitor[s]” and “correct[s] conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”82 In October 2010, Soros announced that he would soon donate $1 million directly to Media Matters.83
  • Sundance Institute: In 1996, Soros launched his Soros Documentary Fund to produce “social justice” films that would “spur awareness, action and social change.” In 2001, this Fund became part of actor-director Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute. Between 1996 and 2008, OSI earmarked at least $5.2 million for the production of several hundred documentaries, many of which were highly critical of capitalism, American society, or Western culture generally.84 In 2009, Soros pledged another $5 million to the Sundance Institute.85

Organizations that seek to inject the American judicial system with leftist values:

  • The Alliance for Justice consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “radical right-wing[ers]” and “extremists” whose views range far outside the boundaries of mainstream public opinion.86
  • The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy seeks to indoctrinate young law students to view the Constitution as an evolving or “living” document,87 and to reject “conservative buzzwords such as ‘originalism‘ and ‘strict construction.’”88
  • Justice at Stake89 promotes legislation that would replace judicial elections with a “merit-selection” system where a small committee of legal elites, unaccountable to the public, would pick those most “qualified” to serve as judges. OSI has spent at least $45.4 million on efforts to change the way judges are chosen in many American states.90

Organizations that advance leftist agendas by infiltrating churches and religious congregations:

  • Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good advocates (mediachecker – > these are non-practicing catholics) a brand of “social justice” that would counteract the “greed, materialism, and excessive individualism” that are allegedly inherent in capitalism.91
  • Sojourners characterizes wealth redistribution as the fulfillment of a biblical mandate.92 Jim Wallis, the founder of this evangelical Christian ministry, has expressed his hope that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.”93
  • People Improving Communities through Organizing uses “people of faith” as foot soldiers in its crusade for the “transformation” of “people, institutions, and … our larger culture.”94
  • Catholics for Choice—formerly known as Catholics for a Free Choice—(mediachecker – > again these are nonpracticing catholics) is a nominally Catholic organization that “believes in a world where everyone has equal access to … safe and legal abortion services.”95

Think tanks that promote leftist policies:

  • The Institute for Policy Studies has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. It seeks to provide a corrective to the “unrestrained greed” of “markets and individualism.”96
  • The New America Foundation tries to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy policy, and global governance.97
  • The Urban Institute favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.98

Organizations that promote open borders, mass immigration, a watering down of current immigration laws, increased rights and benefits for illegal aliens, and ultimately amnesty:

  • The American Immigration Council—formerly known as the the American Immigration Law Foundation—supports “birthright citizenship” for children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.99
  • Casa de Maryland periodically sponsors “know your rights” training sessions to teach illegals how to evade punishment in the event that they are apprehended in an immigration raid.100
  • The Immigrant Legal Resource Center belongs to the sanctuary movement that tries to shield illegal aliens from the law.101
  • The Migration Policy Institute advocates a more permissive U.S. refugee admissions and resettlement policy, as well as more social-welfare benefits for illegals residing in the U.S.102
  • LatinoJustice PRLDF is a legal advocacy group that “protects opportunities for all Latinos … especially the most vulnerable—new immigrants and the poor.”103
  • The Immigration Policy Center states that “[r]equiring the 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S. to register with the government and meet eligibility criteria in order to gain legal status is a key element of comprehensive immigration reform.”104
  • The National Immigration Forum opposes the enhancement of the U.S. Border Patrol and the construction of a border fence to prevent illegal immigration.105
  • The National Immigration Law Center works to help low-income immigrants gain access to government-funded welfare programs on the same basis as legal American citizens.106

Organizations that oppose virtually all post-9/11 national-security measures enacted by the U.S. government:

  • The Center for Constitutional Rights, founded by four longtime supporters of communist causes,107 has condemned the “immigration sweeps, ghost detentions, extraordinary rendition, and every other illegal program the government has devised” in response to “the so-called War on Terror.”108
  • The National Security Archive Fund collects and publishes declassified documents (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.109

Organizations that defend suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters:

  • The Constitution Project has supported such notorious figures as Salim Ahmed Hamdan (Osama bin Laden‘s bodyguard and chauffeur) and Jose Padilla (an American Islamic convert and terrorist plotter). Moreover, the Project contends that it is illegal for the U.S. government to detain terror suspects if the evidence against them was obtained through “torture.”110
  • The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee was established to support Lynne Stewart, who is a criminal-defense attorney and an America-hating Maoist. Stewart was convicted of illegally helping her incarcerated client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, pass messages to an Egypt-based Islamic terrorist organization. In September 2002, the Open Society Institute gave $20,000111 to this committee; OSI vice president Gara LaMarche characterized Ms. Stewart as a “human rights defender.”112

Organizations that depict virtually all American military actions as unwarranted and immoral:

  • Amnesty International: In 2005, this group’s then-executive director William Schulz alleged that the United States had become “a leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture.113 Schulz’s remarks were echoed by Amnesty’s then-secretary general Irene Khan, who charged that the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the U.S. was housing several hundred captured terror suspects, “has become the gulag of our time.”114
  • Global Exchange was founded by Medea Benjamin, a pro-Castro radical who helped establish a project known as Iraq Occupation Watch for the purpose of encouraging widespread desertion by “conscientious objectors” in the U.S. military.115 In December 2004, Benjamin announced that Global Exchange would be sending aid to the families of terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Iraq.116

Organizations that advocate America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending:

  • The American Friends Service Committee, which views America as the world’s chief source of international strife, has long had a friendly relationship with the Communist Party USA.117 Lamenting that “the United States spends 59% of the discretionary federal budget on military-related expenses,” the Committee seeks to “realig[n] national spending priorities and to increase the portion of the budget that is spent on housing, quality education for all, medical care, and fair wages.”118 In 2000, George Soros himself was a signatory to a letter titled “Appeal for Responsible Security” that appeared in The New York Times. The letter called upon the U.S. government “to commit itself unequivocally to negotiate the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons,” and to participate in “the global de-alerting of nuclear weapons and deep reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”119
    (NOTE: OSI is a member of the Peace and Security Funders Group.)

Organizations that promote radical environmentalism:

Groups in this category typically oppose mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing enterprises, development and construction in wilderness areas, the use of coal, the use of pesticides, and oil and gas exploration in “environmentally sensitive” locations. Moreover, they claim that human industrial activity leads to excessive carbon-dioxide emissions which, in turn, cause a potentially cataclysmic phenomenon called “global warming.” Examples of such Soros donees include Earthjustice, Green For All, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance for Climate Protection, Friends of the Earth, and the Earth Island Institute.
Another major recipient of Soros money is the Tides Foundation, which receives cash from all manner of donors—individuals, groups, and other foundations—and then funnels it to designated left-wing recipients. Having given more than $400 million to “progressive nonprofit organizations” since 2000,120 Tides is a heavy backer of environmental organizations, though its philanthropy extends also into many other areas.
George Soros presents himself as an environmentalist of the first order and is quick to condemn industrial corporations for allegedly trampling recklessly over the earth’s ecosystems in pursuit of the almighty dollar. But in fact, Soros himself has proven to be quite willing to despoil Mother Nature in exchange for profits of his own. Consider, for example, his involvement in the Argentine beef industry, which environmentalists claim is responsible for massive levels of water pollution and deforestation. Argentina’s biggest landowner is none other than George Soros, with some 500,000 hectares of land and 150,000 head of cattle to his name.121 Moreover, Soros is a part owner of Apex Silver Mines, which operates in a remote and ecologically sensitive region of Bolivia.122

Organizations that oppose the death penalty in all circumstances:

In 2000 George Soros co-signed a letter to President Bill Clinton asking for a moratorium on the death penalty, on grounds that it tended to be implemented disproportionately against black and Hispanic offenders.123
Consistent with the billionaire’s opposition to capital punishment, his Open Society Institute has given millions of dollars to anti-death penalty organizations such as New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, Witness to Innocence, Equal Justice USA, the Death Penalty Information Center, People of Faith against the Death Penalty, and the Fair Trial Initiative.

Organizations that promote modern-day feminism’s core tenetthat America is fundamentally a sexist society where discrimination and violence against women have reached epidemic proportions:

Organizations that promote not only women’s right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand,128 but also political candidates who take that same position:

Organizations that favor global government which would bring American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations or other international bodies:

According to George Soros, “[W]e need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy.”129 Consistent with this perspective, the Open Society Institute in 2008 gave $150,000 to the United Nations Foundation, which “works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach.”130 Moreover, OSI is considered a “major” funder of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court,131 which aims to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to an international prosecutor who could initiate capricious or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials and military officers.132

Organizations that support drug legalization:

Dismissing the notion of “a drug-free America” as nothing more than “a utopian dream,” George Soros says that “the war on drugs” is “insane” and, “like the Vietnam War,” simply “cannot be won.”133 “I’ll tell you what I would do if it were up to me,” says Soros. “I would establish a strictly controlled distribution network through which I would make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous ones like crack, legally available.”134 In 1998 Soros was a signatory to a public letter addressed to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, declaring that “the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.”135 The letter blamed the war on drugs for impeding such public health efforts as stemming the spread of HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases, as well as human rights violations and the perpetration of environmental assaults. Other notable signers included Peter Lewis, Tammy Baldwin, Rev. William Sloan Coffin, Jr., Walter Cronkite, Morton H. Halperin, Kweisi Mfume, and Cornel West.
Soros and his Open Society Institute have given many millions of dollars to groups supporting drug-legalization and needle-exchange programs. In 1996, former Carter administration official Joseph Califano called Soros “the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization.”136 According to a Capital Research Center publication, “It’s no exaggeration to say that without Soros there would be no serious lobby against the drug war.”137
A leading recipient of Soros funding is the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which seeks to loosen narcotics laws, promotes “treatment-not-incarceration” policies for non-violent drug offenders, and advocates syringe-access programs “to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.”138 Soros himself formerly sat on the DPA board of directors.139 As recently as 2010, Soros contributed $1 million to support a California ballot measure known as Proposition 19, which would have legalized personal marijuana use in the state; the measure, however, was rejected by voters on election day.140
Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do), speculates on the possible reasons underlying Soros’s support for drug legalization:

“One very possible answer is that he hopes to profit from them [drugs] once they become legal. He has been particularly active in South America, buying up large tracts of land and forging alliances with those in a position to mass-produce narcotics should they become legalized in the United States. He has also helped fund the Andean Council of Coca Leaf producers. Needless to say, this organization would stand to benefit enormously from the legalization of cocaine. He has also taken a 9 percent stake in Banco de Colombia, located in the Colombian drug capital of Cali. The Drug Enforcement Administration has speculated that the bank is being used to launder money and that Soros’s fellow shareholders may be members of a major drug cartel.”141

Organizations that support Euthanasia for the terminally ill:

Soros has long promoted the cause of physician-assisted suicide in an effort to change public attitudes about death. Toward that end, in 1994 he began giving money to the (now defunct) Project on Death in America (PDA), whose purpose was to provide “end-of-life” assistance for ailing people and to enact public policy that will “transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement.”142 Over a 9-year period, the Open Society Institute gave $45 million to PDA.143
Notably, PDA’s mission was congruent with the goals of those who support government-run health care, which invariably features bureaucracies tasked with allocating scarce resources and thus determining who will, and who will not, be eligible for particular medications and treatments. Such bureaucracies generally make their calculations based upon cost-benefit analyses of a variety of possible treatments. Ultimately these decisions tend to disfavor the very old and the very sick, because whatever benefits they might gain from expensive interventions are likely to be of short duration, and thus are not judged to be worth the costs. Soros himself has suggested that “[a]ggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.”144 Additional pro-euthanasia groups funded by Soros and OSI are the following:

  • The Death with Dignity National Center seeks to allow “terminally ill individuals meeting stringent safeguards to hasten their own deaths” by way of lethal drug prescriptions.145
  • The Compassion in Dying Federation of America advocates “aid-in-dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.”146

Organizations that have pressured mortgage lenders to make loans to undercapitalized borrowers, a practice that helped spark the subprime mortgage crisis and housing-market collapse of 2008:

  • The Greenlining Institute147—by threatening to publicly accuse banks of racially discriminatory lending practices—has successfully negotiated loan commitments of more than $2.4 trillion from America’s financial institutions.148
  • The Center for Responsible Lending, according to Americans for Prosperity vice president Phil Kerpen, has “shak[en] down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers.”149

Organizations that exhort the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with, and to make concessions to, Arab terrorist groups and regimes that have pledged to destroy America and Israel alike:

  • The International Crisis Group‘s Mideast director, Robert Malley, has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
  • J Street
 has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and especially since June 2007 when it took complete control.” In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”

Apart from the more than $5 billion that Soros’ foundation network has donated to leftist groups like those cited above, Soros personally has made campaign contributions to such notable political candidates as Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Joe Sestak, Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Ken Salazar, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin, Jon Corzine, Joe Biden, Richard Durbin, Lane Evans, Dennis Kucinich, Maurice Hinchey, and Al Gore. He also has given large sums of money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation.

Around the time that George Soros initially launched his Manhattan-based Open Society Institute, he established what would prove to be a warm and enduring relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton, the new American President and First Lady. When the Clintons took office in early 1993, they faced the daunting task of helping the collapsed Soviet empire rise from its ruins and cultivate a harmonious relationship with the United States. To lead this endeavor, President Clinton appointed three men: Treasury Department official Lawrence Summers, Vice President Al Gore, and soon-to-be State Department official Strobe Talbott. Talbott in particular was given a large degree of authority, prompting some observers to dub him as Clinton’s “Russian policy czar.”150 It so happened that Talbot had an exceptionally high regard for the financial expertise of George Soros—describing him as “a national resource, indeed, a national treasure”—and thus he recruited the billionaire to serve as a key advisor on U.S.-Russian matters.151
Soros, in turn, had connections with a young economist whom he had been fundingJeffrey Sachs, director of the Harvard Institute for International Development. The U.S. Agency for International Development assigned Sachs’ Institute to oversee Russia’s transformation to a market economy after more than seven decades of communism. As a consequence of this assignment, Sachs and his team essentially represented the United States as official economic advisors to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Soros worked closely with Sachs on this project, and the pair held enormous sway over Yeltsin.152 So great was their influence, in fact, that on one occasion Soros quipped that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.”153 But before long, members of Sachs’s team became involved in massive corruption, exploiting for personal gain their access to Russia’s political and economic leaders. Their actions contributed to the collapse of the Russian economy and to the diversion of some $100 billion out of the country.154 Though Sachs himself was not accused of profiting personally from these activities, he resigned as director of the Harvard Institute in May 1999, under a dark cloud of scandal.155 The U.S. House Banking Committee investigated the matter and called Soros to testify. The billionaire denied culpability but admitted that he had used insider access in an illegal deal to acquire a large portion of ***Sidanko Oil***.156 Soros further acknowledged in Congressional testimony that some of the missing Russian assets had made their way into his personal investment portfolio.157 House Banking Committee chairman Jim Leach characterized the entire sordid affair as “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.”158
As the Nineties progressed, it became increasingly evident that Bill and Hillary Clinton embraced virtually all of the values and agendas that George Soros was funding through his Open Society Institute. “I do now have great access in [the Clinton] administration,” said Soros in 1995. “There is no question about this. We actually work together as a team.”159
Soros and Mrs. Clinton in particular held one another in the highest esteem. In November 1997, when Hillary was in Central Asia for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the newly built American University of Kyrgyzstan, she delivered a speech in which she lavished praise on Soros’s Open Society Institute, which had financed the school’s construction.160 One source close to Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle, Center for American Democracy director Rachel Ehrenfeld, reports that Soros visited Hillary at the White House during the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings of 1998-99, when the First Lady was receiving only her most trusted confidantes.161 A few years later, at a June 2004 “Take Back America” conference in Washington, Mrs. Clinton introduced Soros as a courageous man who loved his country deeply. “[W]e need people like George Soros,” she said, “who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.” Soros, in turn, indicated that he was “very, very proud to be introduced” by someone for whom he had such “great, great admiration.” He described Hillary as someone who had been “more effective than most of our statesmen in propagating democracy, freedom, and open society.”162


September 11, 2001 was a watershed moment not only in American history but also in George Soros’s philanthropic career. Soros viewed the 9/11 terrorist attacks as confirmation that U.S. foreign policy—particularly under President George W. Bush, who had taken office eight months earlier—was moving in a dangerous direction, giving rise to anti-American hatred in the hearts of people all across the globe. (mediachecker – > I’ve never been a huge fan of GW Bush but has Obama done any better under Soros’ tutorledge?)  By Soros’s reckoning, Bush embodied the very antithesis of the “open society” ideal. Specifically, the billionaire detested what he viewed as the arrogance the President displayed when he publicly branded America’s enemies as “evil”; when he unapologetically expressed his faith in the exceptionalism of his own culture; and when he seemed disinclined to consider the possibility that the terrorists may have had something valuable to teach Americans about how the rest of the world perceived the United States. Moreover, Soros considered terrorism to be, in large measure, a consequence of economic inequity and the exploitation of poor countries by their wealthier counterparts (mediachecker – > (heh, now that’s ironic).
Reasoning from these premises, Soros—while conceding that the retaliatory U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable163—maintained that the proper long-term response to 9/11 would be for America to launch a global war on poverty. Such an undertaking would be modeled on the Great Society programs which the Johnson administration had instituted in the 1960s—on the theory that by pouring rivers of taxpayer dollars into the nation’s violence-torn ghettos, the presumably justified rage of the rioters could be quelled. In a similar vein, Soros now held that the best way to fight international terrorism would be for the affluent USA to send massive amounts of aid to impoverished regions around the world where the phenomenon tended to originate. Indeed, he had long maintained that the “root causes” of terrorism were “poverty” and “ignorance.”164 Just eight days after 9/11, Soros gave a speech where he said that the “cornerstone” of his “plan” was to “address the social conditions that provide a fertile ground from which [terrorist] volunteers who are willing to sacrifice their lives can be recruited.” This plan would call on “rich countries” to boost their levels of “international assistance,” which—while unlikely to “prevent people like bin Laden from exercising their evil genius”—would “help to alleviate the grievances on which extremism of all kinds feeds.”165
On subsequent occasions, Soros would reiterate his belief that terrorism was caused by a dearth of “international income redistribution” and a “growing inequality between rich and poor, both within countries and among countries.”166 “A global open society,” Soros stressed, “requires affirmative action on a global scale.”167 By contrast, Soros was largely silent on the issue of Islam’s longstanding tradition of jihad, which predated by many hundreds of years any potentially objectionable U.S. foreign-policy initiatives. Rather, he called for a “radical reordering” of American “priorities,” where “[i]nstead of devoting the bulk of the budget to military expenditures to implement the Bush doctrine, we would engage in preventive actions of a constructive nature.”168 “The United States cannot do whatever it wants,” he scolded. “… Our nation must concern itself with the well-being of the world.”169
In Soros’s calculus, 9/11 represented “an unusual opportunity to rethink and reshape the world.” Observing that the recent attacks had “shocked” Americans “into realizing that others may regard them very differently from the way they see themselves,” Soros posited that his fellow countrymen were “more ready to reassess the world and the role the United States plays in it than in normal times.”170 And acknowledging that “[t]his awareness may not last long,” he said: “I am determined not to let the moment pass.”171 (mediachecker – > one would think he actually had something to do with the attack)
The urgency which Soros felt with regard to seizing the moment was further heightened on the night of January 29, 2002, when George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address. In that speech, the President made his first controversial reference to Iraq as part of an “axis of evil” that posed a potentially deadly threat to America. Bush intimated that he would soon turn his foreign-policy attention toward Saddam Hussein‘s regime, which continued to “flaunt its hostility toward America,” “support terror,” and violate its international agreements. As the President pledged not to “wait on events while dangers gather,” nor to “stand by as peril draws closer and closer,” speculation about a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq began to coalesce.172 In Soros’s view, such an invasion would be yet another misguided and senseless endeavor, and he was determined to do whatever he could to prevent it.
The very next month, Soros appointed former Clinton administration official Morton Halperin to the post of Open Society Institute director. Halperin, whom some State Department officials suspected of being a communist agent,173 had been instrumental in derailing America’s war effort during the Vietnam era, when President Johnson put him in charge of compiling a classified history of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Halperin’s labor ultimately bore fruit—in June 1971—with the publication of the notorious “Pentagon Papers.”174 Thereafter, Halperin went on to serve (from 1975-1992) as director of an ACLU project called the Center for National Security Studies, which sought to slash U.S. defense expenditures and undermine the nation’s intelligence capabilities.175 In Target AmericaJames L. Tyson’s 1981 exposé of the Soviet Union’s elaborate “propaganda campaign designed to weaken and demoralize America from the inside”—the author stated:

“Halperin … and his organizations have had a constant record of advocating the weakening of U.S. intelligence capabilities. His organizations are also notable for ignoring the activities of the KGB or any other foreign intelligence organization…. A balance sheet analysis of Halperin’s writings and testimonies … gives Halperin a score of 100% on the side of output favorable to the Communist line and 0% on any output opposed to the Communist line.”176

Like Halperin, George Soros stridently counseled against military intervention in Iraq, warning that an invasion “would actually be a victory for the terrorists”—because the inevitable killing of “innocent civilians” would give groups like al Qaeda “the kind of radicalization that they are looking for” in order to justify “a vicious cycle of escalating violence.”177 “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism,” said Soros. “Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. (mediachecker -> interesting that Soros and Obama are of the same thought in more ways than this one). Crimes require police work, not military action.”178 Moreover, Soros characterized the so-called “Bush doctrine” of preemptive military action against those who may pose a threat to the U.S. an “atrocious proposition.”179
By the time the U.S. invaded Iraq in early 2003, Soros’s contempt for President Bush’s “imperialist vision” had reached a fever pitch.180 Accusing Bush of “deliberately foster[ing] fear because it helps to keep the nation lined up behind the president,” Soros added cynically: “Terrorism is the ideal enemy. It is invisible and therefore never disappears. An enemy that poses a genuine and recognized threat can effectively hold a nation together.”181 In August, Soros warned that the very “fate of the world depends on the United States, and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction” with his “false and dangerous” doctrine.182 In the fall, Soros referred to Bush administration officials and Republicans generally as “extremists” who “don’t believe in the system of democracy as we know it”; and who embraced “a very dangerous ideology” which held that “the United States … should impose its power, impose its will and its interests on the world.”183
Soros routinely condemned Bush for his “unabashed pursuit of self-interest”;184 for “equat[ing] freedom with American values”; for holding the “simplistic view” that “[w]e are right and they are wrong”;185 and for harboring a “false sense of certitude” that Americans had “right on our side.”186 Each of these transgressions, Soros explained, violated the “principles of open society, which recognize that we may be wrong.”187 “The supremacist ideology of the Bush administration,” he added, “is in contradiction with the principles of an open society because it claims possession of an ultimate truth.”188
As the Iraq War took an increasing toll in terms of both American and Iraqi lives, Soros wrote that the U.S. military response to 9/11 had actually turned out to be a greater moral atrocity than the original “crime” that prompted it, because the war “has claimed more innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq than have the attacks on the World Trade Center.” In short, Soros characterized the Bush administration’s “pursuit of American supremacy” as more dangerous than Islamist terror.189
Not only did Soros believe that Bush was following a mindless and perilous policy, but he saw the President’s motives as wholly dishonorable. Soros repeatedly accused Bush of using intelligence that had been “exposed as exaggerated or even false” to justify the invasion of Iraq under “false pretenses.”190 He denounced “the exploitation of September 11 by the Bush administration to pursue its policy of dominating the world in the guise of fighting terrorism.”191 He expanded on this theme by accusing Bush of seeking “to justify repressive measures” on the home front while “establish[ing] a secure alternative to Saudi oil” in the Mideast.192 “The other important consideration,” Soros added, “was Israel.” He intimated that Bush, by flexing U.S. muscle in the Middle East, was signaling his readiness to intervene in affairs that could potentially affect America’s closest ally in the region. By so doing, said Soros, the President was catering to “the traditional pro-Israel lobby” which included “the evangelical right—and that is the core of the president’s constituency.”193
As Soros saw things, the President’s arrogance and corruption had filtered down perceptibly into the ranks of the military personnel who were carrying out Bush’s mission. Thus Soros likened the conduct of American troops to that of communist and fascist thugs, asserting that “the picture of torture in Abu Ghraib” was proof that “the way President Bush conducted the war on terror converted us from victims into perpetrators.”194 Soros charged that not only had America “violated international law” by “invading Iraq … without a second UN Resolution,” but that it had “violated the Geneva Conventions” by “mistreating and even torturing prisoners.”195
On numerous occasions, Soros drew parallels between the Bush administration and some of history’s most infamous totalitarian regimes. Bush’s view that “there is only one model of democracy,” said Soros, was “as false, and potentially as dangerous, as that of the Communists’ belief that there is only one way to organize society.”196 Soros further likened Bush’s “Orwellian” assertion that “[y]ou can have freedom as long as you do what we tell you to do,” to Soviet rhetoric about “people’s democracies.”197 “When I hear President Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans,” Soros stated. “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me.”198 “Who would have thought sixty years ago,” asked Soros, “when Karl Popper wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, that the United States itself could pose a threat to open society? Yet that is what is happening, both internally and internationally.”199
In a September 29, 2003 interview with BBC radio, Soros said it was imperative that there be “a regime change in the United States”—meaning that President Bush must be “voted out of power.”200 In November, Soros said that because “America, under Bush, is a danger to the world,” the outcome of the forthcoming year’s presidential race had become “the central focus of my life.” “And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is,” Soros added, declaring that he would willingly trade his entire multi-billion-dollar fortune if doing so could be “guaranteed” to unseat Bush.201 To his litany of grievances against the President, Soros now added the infamous Florida recount debacle of 2000 and called into question the very legitimacy of Bush’s election victory. “President Bush came to office without a clear mandate,” said Soros. “He was elected president by a single vote on the Supreme Court.”202
***The types of changes America needed were crystal clear to Soros. Above all else, he wished to steer the country, politically and ideologically, in a direction that was consistent with the agendas of the groups that he had been funding for a decade through his Open Society Institute. Those agendas could essentially be distilled down to three overriding themes: the diminution of American power, the subjugation of American sovereignty in favor of global governance, and the implementation of redistributive economic policies—both within the U.S. and across national borders. Toward these ends, Soros saw “the forthcoming elections” as “an excellent opportunity to deflate the bubble of American supremacy.”203 He would employ his wealth and his ideological fervor to capitalize on this opportunity, knowing that the best time to implement radical change is during times of upheaval and crisis—i.e., times like the aftermath of 9/11. “Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction,” Soros himself had written in his 2000 book Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism.204 (mediachecker – > Obama’s Ron Emmanuel said the same thing).
By no means was this the first time that Soros had aimed to engineer the fall of a government which he deemed oppressive. On several previous occasions, he had used his extraordinary wealth to bankroll popular movements seeking to undermine communist and authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Specifically, Soros had funded the training, organization and mobilization of many millions of demonstrators who took part in a series of bloodless political revolutions—commonly known as “velvet revolutions” or “color revolutions”205—that ultimately brought down governments in those regions. Typically, these mobilizations consisted of massive street rallies (sometimes with hundreds of thousands of participants) and carefully coordinated acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins and general strikes. In several instances, such Soros-funded protesters challenged the results of popular elections and accused incumbent leaders of election fraud—charges which were then echoed by Soros-funded exit pollsters and Soros-funded media outlets, thereby greatly amplifying the effect of the accusations. A brief survey of Soros’s most noteworthy foreign interventions will be useful at this point.
Soros helped bankroll “Charter 77,” a 1976 document demanding that the Czech government recognize some basic human rights—most notably the freedom to express religious beliefs or political opinions without fear of retributive discrimination—that were already guaranteed by the nation’s constitution. This Charter and the political movement that grew from it ultimately culminated in the velvet revolution that brought down Czechoslovakia’s Communist regime in late 1989.206
Soros funding played a critical role in promoting other upheavals in the former Soviet bloc as well. “My foundations,” boasts Soros, “contributed to Democratic regime change in Slovakia in 1998, Croatia in 1999, and Yugoslavia in 2000, mobilizing civil society to get rid of Vladimir Meciar, Franjo Tudjman, and Slobodan Milosevic, respectively.”207
Meciar, for his part, was a hardline nationalist whose authoritarian government—characterized by demagoguery, corruption, and hostility toward the Hungarian minority—brought instability and isolation to Slovakia in the mid-1990s.208 Croatian president Tudjman was likewise an autocrat infamous for his brutality, extreme nationalism, indifference to civil rights, and manipulation of electoral processes.209 And Milosevic, who served as president of Serbia and Yugoslavia in the 1990s, was an infamous architect of military aggression, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.210 British journalist Neil Clark reports that from 1991 to 2000, Soros and his Open Society Institute methodically laid the groundwork for the movement that ultimately led to Milosevic’s resignation, “channel[ing] more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and ‘independent’ media…”211 In a 1996 speech, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman offered a profound insight into how Soros typically injected his influence into the political workings of a given nation by patiently and systematically infiltrating strategic organizations and governmental agencies:

“[Soros and his allies] have spread their tentacles throughout the whole of our society. Soros … had approval to … gather and distribute humanitarian aid.… However, we … allowed them to do almost whatever they wanted.… They have involved in their network … people of all ages and classes … trying to win them over by financial aid.… [Their aim is] control of all spheres of life … setting up a state within a state.…”212

Soros also funded Soviet Georgia’s “Rose Revolution,”213 a popular movement that forced Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze to resign in November 2003.214 According to Britain’s Globe and Mail, in February of that year Soros “began laying the brick work for the toppling” of Shevardnadze. “That month, funds from his Open Society Institute sent a … [Georgian] activist … to Serbia to meet with members of the [resistance] movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic.”215 That summer, Soros brought some of those Serbian activists to Georgia to train student activists there. Meanwhile, a Soros-funded television station aired weekly broadcasts of the documentary Bringing Down a Dictator, which presented a step-by-step account of the overthrow of Milosevic and played a crucial role in training Georgian insurgents.216 In the autumn months, Soros spent some $42 million preparing the overthrow movement to mobilize. Then, in mid-November, large-scale anti-government demonstrations spread like wildfire in most of Georgia’s major cities. Shevardnadze, able to read the proverbial writing on the wall, resigned within a matter of days.217 Soros later told the Los Angeles Times, “I’m delighted by what happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it.”218 In November 2003, the editor of an English-language daily based in Georgia said, “It’s generally accepted public opinion here that Mr. Soros is the person who planned Shevardnadze’s overthrow.”219 Notably, some people who worked for Soros’ organizations—including two of the Open Society Georgia Foundation’s former executive directors—later assumed influential positions in the new Georgian government.220
Soros thereafter would go on to fund the “Orange Revolution,” a series of protests and political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, ultimately forcing Moscow’s favored candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, to lose a controversial and hotly contested presidential election.221 Also in early 2005, Soros helped finance the “Tulip Revolution”—a massive protest movement that led to the overthrow of President Askar Akayev and his government in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan.222
But right now, in 2003-04, Soros’s primary focus was on the United States, whose government he considered to be at least as dangerous and oppressive as those of the aforementioned communist and authoritarian regimes. “I believe deeply in the values of an open society,” Soros said. “For the past 15 years I have focused my energies on fighting for these values abroad. Now I am doing it in the United States.”223 Asserting that he could “do a lot more about the issues I care about by changing the government than by pushing the issues,”224 Soros set out to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”225 To accomplish this, he would create a political apparatus of extraordinary influence.
Soros had quietly laid the groundwork for this apparatus during the preceding eight years. Between 1994 and 2002, the billionaire had spent millions of dollars promoting the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—better known as the McCain-Feingold Act226—which was signed into law in November 2002 by President Bush. Soros began working on this issue shortly after the 1994 midterm elections, when for the first time in nearly half a century, Republicans won strong majorities in both houses of Congress. Political analysts at the time attributed the huge Republican gains in large part to the effectiveness of television advertising—most notably the “Harry and Louise” series (which cost $14 million to produce and air) where a fictional suburban couple exposed the many hidden, and distasteful, details of Hillary Clinton’s proposals for a more socialized national health-care system. Indeed the 1994 election became, to a considerable degree, a referendum on this attempted government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy—and on the Democratic President who had tacitly endorsed it. George Soros was angry that such advertisements were capable of overriding the influence of the major print and broadcast news media, which, because they were overwhelmingly sympathetic to Democrat agendas, had given Hillary’s plan a great deal of free, positive publicity for months. Three weeks after the 1994 elections, Soros announced that he intended to “do something” about “the distortion of our electoral process by the excessive use of TV advertising.”227 That “something” would be campaign-finance reform.
Starting in 1994, Soros’s Open Society Institute and a few other leftist foundations began bankrolling front groups and so-called “experts” whose aim was to persuade Congress to swallow the fiction that millions of Americans were clamoring for “campaign-finance reform.” This deceptive strategy was the brainchild of Sean Treglia, a former program officer with the Pew Charitable Trusts.228 Between 1994 and 2004, some $140 million of foundation cash was used to promote campaign-finance reform. Nearly 90 percent of this amount derived from just eight foundations, one of which was the Open Society Institute, which contributed $12.6 million to the cause.229 Among the major recipients of these OSI funds were such pro-reform organizations as Common Cause ($625,000); Public Campaign ($1.3 million); Democracy 21 ($300,000); the Alliance For Better Campaigns ($650,000); the Center For Public Integrity ($1.7 million); the Center For Responsive Politics ($75,000); Public Citizen ($275,000); and the Brennan Center for Justice (more than $3.3 million).230 
The “research” which these groups produced in order to make a case on behalf of campaign-finance reform was largely bogus and contrived. For instance, Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno had clearly admitted in his February 19, 1999 grant proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of the proposed study was political, not scholarly, and that the project would be axed if it failed to yield the desired results:

“The purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward. Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.”

The stated purpose of McCain-Feingold was to purge politics of corruption by: (a) putting restrictions on paid advertising during the weeks just prior to political elections, and (b) tightly regulating the amount of money that political parties and candidates could accept from donors. Vis à vis the former of those two provisions, the new legislation barred private organizations—including unions, corporations, and citizen activist groups—from advertising for or against any candidate for federal office on television or radio during the 60 days preceding an election, and during the 30 days preceding a primary. During these blackout periods, only official political parties would be permitted to engage in “express advocacy” advertising—i.e., political ads that expressly urged voters to “vote for” or “vote against” a specified candidate. Equally important, major media networks were exempted from McCain-Feingold’s constraints; thus they were free to speak about candidates in any manner they wished during their regular programming and news broadcasts. This would inevitably be a positive development for Democrats, who enjoyed the near-universal support of America’s leading media outlets.231
In addition to its limits on pre-election political advertising, McCain-Feingold also placed onerous new restrictions on the types of donations which candidates, parties, and political action committees (PACs) could now accept. Previously, they had been permitted to take two types of contributions. One of these was “hard money,” which referred to funds earmarked for the purpose of express advocacy. Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations stipulated that in a single calendar year, no hard-money donor could give more than $1,000 to any particular candidate, no more than $5,000 to a PAC, and no more than $20,000 to any political party.232
The other category of pre-McCain-Feingold donations was “soft-money,” which donors were permitted to give directly to a political party in amounts unlimited by law. But to qualify for designation as “soft money,” a donation could not be used to fund “express advocacy” ads on behalf of any particular candidate. Rather, it had to be used to pay for such things as “voter-education” ads or “issue-oriented” ads—political messages that carefully refrained from making explicit calls to “vote for” or “vote against” any specific candidate. So long as an ad steered clear of uttering such forbidden instructions, there was no limit as to how much soft money could be spent on its production and dissemination.
McCain-Feingold raised the per-donor maximum for certain hard-money donations: A donor could now give up to $2,000 to a candidate, $5,000 to a PAC, and $25,000 to a political party.233 But the new law banned soft-money contributions to political parties altogether.
Historically, Republicans had enjoyed a 2-1 advantage over Democrats in raising hard money from individual donors. Democrats had relied much more heavily on soft money from large institutions such as labor unions.234 Thus it seems counter-intuitive that Soros, who clearly favored Democrats over Republicans, would seek to push legislation whose net effect—the removal of soft money—would be unfavorable to Democratic Party fundraising efforts.
But Soros’s motive becomes clear when we look at the types of organizations whose fundraising activities were left unaffected by McCain-Feingold. These were “527 committees”—nonprofits named after Section 527 of the IRS code—which, unlike ordinary PACS, were not required to register with the FEC. Run mostly by special-interest groups, these 527s were technically supposed to be independent of, and unaffiliated with, any party or candidate. As such, they were permitted to raise soft money—in amounts unbound by any legal limits—for all manner of political activities other than express advocacy. That is, so long as a 527’s soft money was not being used to pay for ads explicitly urging people to cast their ballots either for or against any particular candidate, the letter of the McCain-Feingold law technically was being followed. Practically speaking, of course, such things as “issue-oriented ads” and “voter-education” ads can easily be tailored to favor one party or candidate over another, while carefully steering clear of “express advocacy.”

Once McCain-Feingold was in place, Soros and his political allies collaborated to set up a network of “527 committees” ready to receive the soft money that individual donors and big labor unions normally would have given directly to the Democratic Party. These 527s could then use that money to fund issue-oriented ads, voter-education initiatives, get-out-the-vote drives, and other “party-building” activities—not only to help elect Democratic candidates in 2004, but more broadly to guide the Democratic Party ever-further leftward and to reject the “closed” society that Bush and the Republicans presumably favored. By helping to push McCain-Feingold through Congress, Soros had effectively cut off the Democrats’ soft-money supply and diverted it to the coffers of an alternative network of beneficiaries—which he personally controlled.235 As Byron York observed, “[T]he new campaign finance rules had actually increased the influence of big money in politics. By giving directly to ‘independent’ groups rather than to the party itself, big-ticket donors could influence campaign strategy and tactics more directly than they ever had previously…. And the power was concentrated in very few hands”—most notably Soros’s.236
While Soros’s 527s were clearly devoted to Democratic Party agendas and values, they publicly professed to be independent of any party affiliations. Their partisanship was somewhat shrouded in proverbial shadows. Gradually, a number of journalists began to make reference to the emergence of certain pro-Democrat “shadow organizations” that seemed geared toward circumventing McCain-Feingold’s soft-money ban. In time, the term “Shadow Party” came into use.237
George Soros set in motion the wheels of this Shadow Party when he gathered a team of political strategists, activists, and Democrat donors at his Long Island beach house on July 17, 2003, to discuss how President Bush could be defeated in the 2004 election. Attendees included such luminaries as OSI director Morton Halperin; former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta; former Clinton speechwriters Jeremy Rosner and Robert Boorstin; Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope; labor leader and former Clinton advisor Steve Rosenthal; EMILY’s List founder and abortion-rights activist Ellen Malcolm; and major Democrat donors such as Lewis and Dorothy Cullman, Robert McKay, Robert Glaser, and Peter Lewis.238
The consensus was that voter turnout—particularly in 17 “swing” or “battleground” states239—would be the key to unseating President Bush. Steve Rosenthal and Ellen Malcolm—CEO and president, respectively, of a newly formed but poorly funded voter-registration group called America Coming Together (ACT)240—suggested that voters in those swing states should be recruited and mobilized as soon as possible. Agreeing, Soros told the pair that he personally would give ACT $10 million to help maximize its effectiveness. A few other attendees also pledged to give the fledgling group large sums of money: Soros’s billionaire friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation, promised to give $10 million; Robert Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million; Rob McKay, president of the McKay Family Foundation, committed $1 million; and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman pledged $500,000.241
By early 2004, the administrative core of George Soros’s Shadow Party was in place. It consisted of seven ostensibly “independent” nonprofit groups—all but one of which were headquartered in Washington, DC. In a number of cases, these groups shared one another’s finances, directors, and corporate officers; occasionally they even shared office space.242

The seven groups were:
1) America Coming Together (ACT): Jump-started by Soros’s $10 million grant, ACT in 2004 ran what it called “the largest voter-contact program in history,” with more than 1,400 full-time paid canvassers contacting potential voters door-to-door and by phone.243
2) Center For American Progress (CAP): This entity was established to serve as a think tank promoting leftist ideas and policy initiatives. Soros, enthusiastic about the Center’s potential, pledged in July 2003 to donate up to $3 million to help get the project off the ground.244 From the outset, CAP’s leadership featured a host of former high-ranking officials from the Clinton administration.245 Hillary Clinton predicted that the organization would provide “some new intellectual capital” with which to “build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party’s values.”246 George Soros and Morton Halperin together selected former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta to serve as president of CAP. Podesta said his goal was to develop CAP as a “think tank on steroids,” featuring “a message-oriented war room” that “will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right.”247
3) America Votes: This national coalition coordinated the efforts of many get-out-the-vote organizations and their thousands of contributing activists.248 Soros’s support for America Votes would continue well past 2004. Indeed he would donate $2.15 million to this coalition in the 2006 election cycle,249 another $1.25 million in advance of the 2008 elections,250 and yet another $1.25 million in 2010.251
4) Media Fund: Describing itself as “the largest media-buying organization supporting a progressive message” in the United States, this group produced and strategically placed political ads in the print, broadcast, and electronic media.252
5) Joint Victory Campaign 2004 (JVC): This fundraising entity focused on collecting contributions and then disbursing them chiefly to America Coming Together and the Media Fund. In 2004 alone, JVC channeled $19.4 million to the former, and $38.4 million to the latter.253 Soros personally gave JVC more than $12 million that year.254
6) Thunder Road Group (TRG): This political consultancy coordinated strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and America Votes. Its duties included strategic planning, polling, opposition research, covert operations, and public relations.255
7) This California-based entity was the only one of the Shadow Party’s core groups that was not a new startup operation. Launched in September 1998, MoveOn is a Web-based political network that organizes online activists around specific issues, raises money for Democratic candidates, generates political ads, and is very effective at recruiting young people to support Democrats.256 In November 2003, Soros pledged to give MoveOn $5 million to help its cause.257
According to Ellen Malcolm of America Coming Together (ACT), the financial commitment which Soros made to these Shadow Party groups in 2003 “was a signal to potential donors that he had looked at what was going on and that this was pretty exciting, and that he was going to stand behind it, and it was the real deal.”258 Byron York observed, “After Soros signed on, contributions started pouring in.” ACT and the Media Fund alone took in some $200 million—including $20 million from Soros alone. This type of money was ***unprecedented*** in American politics.259
Harold Ickes, who served as White House deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, had a hand in creating every Shadow Party core group except MoveOn. He was also entrusted with the vital task of making these organizations function as a cohesive entity. In 2004, Democratic strategist Harold Wolfson suggested that outside of the official campaign of presidential candidate John Kerry, Ickes “is the most important person in the Democratic Party today.”260 

In addition to its seven core members, the Shadow Party also came to include at least another 30 well-established leftwing activist groups and labor unions that participated in the America Votes coalition.

Among the better-known of these were ACORN; the AFL-CIO; the AFSCME; the American Federation of Teachers; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; EMILY’s List; the Human Rights Campaign; the League of Conservation Voters; the NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Education Association; People for the American Way; Planned Parenthood; the Service Employees International Union; and the Sierra Club.261
New Mexico’s then-governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, observed that “these groups” were “crucial” to the anti-Bush effort. “Now that campaign-finance reform is law,” he said, “organizations like these have become the replacement for the national Democratic Party.”262 And no donor was more heavily invested in these organizations—or in defeating President Bush—than George Soros, who contributed $27,080,105 to pro-Democrat 527s during the 2004 election cycle. The second leading donor was the billionaire ***insurance entrepreneur*** Peter Lewis ($23,997,220), followed by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing ($13,952,682) and Golden West Financial Corporation founders Herbert and Marion Sandler ($13,007,959).263
When President Bush won re-election in 2004, George Soros was devastated; his massive financial investments and herculean organizing efforts had all gone for naught. Adding insult to injury, the hated Republicans had retained control of both houses of Congress. As Soros contemplated what course of action he ought to pursue next, the answer came to him—somewhat unexpectedly—in the form of Democrat political operative Rob Stein, former chief of staff to Commerce Secretary Ron Brown during the Clinton administration. For the preceding two years, Stein had been busy devising a strategy by which Democrats might reclaim supremacy in the executive and legislative branches of government. He began working on this strategy shortly after the Republicans had gained eight House seats and two Senate seats in the 2002 midterm elections. Lamenting that he was “living in a one-party [Republican] country,”264 Stein at that point resolved to study the conservative movement and determine why it was winning the political battle. After a year of analysis, he concluded that a few influential, wealthy family foundations—most notably Scaife, Bradley, Olin, and Coors—had spearheaded the creation of a $300 million network of politically influential organizations. Stein featured these facts in a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation—titled “The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix”—which mapped out, in painstaking detail, the conservative movement’s networking strategies and funding sources.265
Next, Stein set out to show his presentation—mostly in private meetings—to political leaders, activists, and prospective big-money donors of the left. He hoped to inspire them to join his crusade to build a new organization—a financial clearinghouse to be called the Democracy Alliance (DA)—dedicated to offsetting the efforts of conservative funders and injecting new life into the progressive movement. At each presentation, Stein asked the viewer to pledge that he or she would keep confidential the substance of the proceedings, so as to give the project a chance to coalesce and gain some momentum without excessive public scrutiny.266
Stein officially filed DA’s corporate registration in the District of Columbia in January 2005.267 By that point, he had shown his PowerPoint presentation to several hundred people.268 Stein recalls that during those sessions, he consistently observed “an unbelievable frustration” by big Democrat donors who felt hopelessly unconnected to one another even as they longed to be part of a strategic coalition that could work collaboratively and cohesively.269 This was particularly true of George Soros, thus it was most significant that Soros quickly and enthusiastically embraced Stein’s concept. In April 2005, Soros brought together 70 likeminded, carefully vetted, fellow millionaires and billionaires in Phoenix, Arizona, to discuss Stein’s ideas and expeditiously implement a plan of action.270 Most of those in attendance agreed that the conservative movement represented “a fundamental threat to the American way of life.”271 And, like Soros, a considerable number of them looked favorably on Stein’s analysis and concept. Thus was born the Democracy Alliance.
DA members, called “partners,” include individuals and organizations alike. Partnership in the Alliance is by invitation-only.272 These partners pay an initial $25,000 fee, and $30,000 in yearly dues thereafter. They also must give at least $200,000 annually to groups which the Alliance endorses. Donors metaphorically “pour” these requisite donations into one or more of what Rob Stein refers to as DA’s “four buckets” of fundraising: ideas, media, leadership training, and civic engagement. The money is then apportioned to approved left-wing groups from each respective category.273
The Democracy Alliance is known to consist of at least 100 donor-partners but historically has been quite secretive regarding their identities. Nevertheless, the Capital Research Center has managed to compile the names of some of the more significant current and former DA partners (in addition to George Soros and Rob Stein).274 A large percentage of them have significant ties to Soros that extend well beyond their shared membership in the Democracy Alliance.

Among these partners are the following:

No grants were pledged at the Democracy Alliance’s April 2005 gathering in Phoenix, but at an Atlanta meeting three months later, DA partners pledged $39 million—about a third of which came directly from George Soros and Peter Lewis.294 Because the Alliance has largely refrained from providing information about its giving, only a small percentage of its donees are known to the public.295 Thus it is impossible to determine precisely how much money DA has disbursed since its inception. Most estimates, though, place the figure at more than $100 million.296 One source—Alliance member Simon Rosenberg—claimed in August 2008 that DA had already “channeled hundreds of millions of dollars into progressive organizations.”297 Below are the names of a number of DA’s known donees298—and in certain cases the sums they have received from the Alliance. Again, the Capital Research Center was instrumental in identifying these donees, many of whom have financial and ideological ties to Soros and the Open Society Institute that long predate their connections to the Democracy Alliance.299

  • ACORN: DA founder Rob Stein has called this pro-socialist, notoriously corrupt “community organization” a “tough-minded” and “very responsible” group.300
  • Air America Radio: When this left-leaning radio station was on the verge of bankruptcy in early 2006, it received a funding commitment of $8 million from DA.301
  • America Votes: This voter-mobilization coalition has received at least $6 million in DA-approved funding commitments from George Soros.
  • Center for American Progress: By January 2008, DA grants to this leftist think tank totaled at least $9 million—most of which came from George Soros, Peter Lewis, and the Sandlers.
  • Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This Soros-funded group brings ethics charges against (mostly conservative) “government officials who … betray the public trust.”302
  • Election Administration Fund: Housed at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco, this entity has received at least $2.5 million in DA money for its voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts—plus some $1 million from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
  • EMILY’s List: This group raises money for Democratic, pro-choice, female candidates.303
  • Media Matters For America: By January 2008, DA-approve grants to Media Matters totaled at least $7 million.
  • Mi Familia Vota: This group seeks to naturalize new citizens and register them to vote.304 
  • New Organizing Fund: This group, which “train[s] prospective progressive campaign workers in online campaign and organizing techniques,” has accepted donations directly from DA members George Soros and Deborah Rappaport.305
  • Progressive Majority: Working to help “promising progressive candidates” get elected to state and political offices, this group has received at least $5 million in DA grants.306
  • United States Student Association: This group is “dedicated to training, organizing, and developing a base of student leaders” who will become “social justice” activists.307
  • USAction: This group favors increased government spending on social-welfare programs and public education.308

Additional DA grant recipients include such previously cited Soros donees as Catalist, the Center for Community Change, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, the New Democrat Network, People for the American Way, and the Progressive States Network.309
Since approximately 2006, Democracy Alliance members and staff have been working to establish subchapters of their organization in all 50 states. Their most successful effort to date has been in Colorado, where the local DA has funded such varied enterprises as liberal think tanks, media “watchdog” groups, ethics groups that bring forth so-called public-interest litigation, voter-mobilization groups, media outlets that attack conservatives, and liberal leadership-training centers.

The results have been striking: Whereas in 1998 Colorado had a Republican governor, two Republican U.S. senators, and four Republican House members (out of six), by 2009 the state had a Democratic governor, two Democratic U.S. Senators, and five Democratic House members (out of seven).310


In August 2005, when the Democracy Alliance was just getting off the ground, George Soros’s Open Society Institute helped establish yet another new organization—the Progressive Legislative Action Network, or PLAN. Furnishing state legislatures with prewritten “model” legislation reflecting leftist agendas, this group was part and parcel of Soros’s methodical campaign to shift American politics and public attitudes toward the left—by gaining a foothold inside the corridors of power on a state-by-state basis.311
Then, in July 2006, Democracy Alliance partner Michael Kieschnick collaborated with Becky Bond (who also had affiliations with Working Assets and the New Organizing Institute) and James Rucker (who co-founded Color of Change and formerly served as director of grassroots mobilization for Political Action and Civic Action) to launch a major new initiative called the Secretary of State Project (SoSP). This “527 committee” was devoted to helping Democrats win secretary-of-state elections in crucial “swing” states—i.e., states where the margin of victory in the 2004 presidential election had been 120,000 votes or less.312 One of the principal duties of the secretary of state is to serve as the chief election officer who certifies candidates as well as election results in his or her state.313 The holder of this office, then, can potentially play a key role in determining the winner of a close election. Numerous Democracy Alliance partners became funders of SoSP. Soros was one of them. In 2008, for instance, he personally gave $10,000 to the Project.314


Just two months after the Democratic Party had won control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 elections, George Soros and then-SEIU president Andrew Stern created Working For Us (WFU), a pro-Democrat PAC. ***This group does not, however, look favorably upon Democratic centrists***. Rather, it aims “to elect lawmakers who support a progressive political agenda.” Originally proposed by Stern as a way to prevent moderate Democrats from gaining too much influence over the party, WFU publishes the names of what it calls the ***“Top Offenders”*** among congressional Democrats who fail to support such leftist priorities as “living wage” legislation, the proliferation of public-sector labor unions, and the provision of government-funded healthcare for all Americans. Targeting congressional Democrats whose “voting records are more conservative than their districts,” WFU warns that “no bad vote will be overlooked or unpunished.”315
In an effort to promote large-scale income redistribution by means of tax hikes for higher earners, WFU advocates policies that would narrow the economic gulf between the rich and poor. The group’s executive director is Steven Rosenthal, a longtime Democrat operative with close ties to the Clinton administration and a co-founder of Soros’s America Coming Together. According to Rosenthal, WFU “will encourage Democrats to act like Democrats—and if they don’t—they better get out of the way.”316
In November 2007, Soros joined fellow Democracy Alliance members Rob McKay and Anna Burger, as well as John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, to help form the Fund for America (FFA), a “527 committee” designed to work on what Roll Call characterized as “media buys and voter outreach in the run-up to the 2008 elections.” The leading early donors to FFA were Soros ($3.5 million), the SEIU ($2.5 million), Hollywood producer Stephen Bing ($2.5 million), and hedge fund executive Donald Sussman ($1 million). But when FFA failed to meet its overall fundraising goals by early 2008, DA donors cut off their contributions and the group was disbanded in June. Among the organizations it had bankrolled before shutting its doors were America Votes, Americans United for Change, ACORN, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.317
Meanwhile, Soros’s regard for President Bush remained as low as ever. “Indeed,” wrote Soros in 2006, “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.”318 Soros would elaborate on this theme at the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he told reporters: “America needs to … go through a certain de-Nazification process.”319 (mediachecker – > nothing stopping him from leaving this “Nazi” country except I don’t know a country that would take him except maybe Cuba)
While George Soros was busy bankrolling his battalion of established activist groups and launching a few new ones of his own, he quite naturally looked toward the upcoming presidential election of 2008 with great anticipation, eagerly awaiting the day when George W. Bush would finally leave office. The question was, who would replace him? In recent years, all indications had been that Soros favored Hillary Clinton above most, if not all, other potential Democratic candidates for President. But now there was a new face on the scene—a young, charismatic U.S. senator from Illinois named Barack Obama—who seemed not only to share virtually all of Soros’s values and agendas, but also appeared to be a highly skilled politician who stood a good chance of getting elected to the nation’s highest office.
In December of 2006, Soros, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 Senate campaign, met with Obama in Soros’s New York office. Just a few weeks later—on January 16, 2007—Obama announced that he would form a presidential exploratory committee and was contemplating a run for the White House. Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign-finance laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, though Soros pledged to back the New York senator were she to emerge as the nominee.320 But it was clear that Soros considered Obama to be the more electable candidate of the two. Most importantly, Obama’s economic and political prescriptions for America were wholly accordant with those of Soros.
For an in-depth look at the shared agendas of Soros and Obama, click here.

In January 2009, Anatole Kaletsky—a Times of London economics writer who opposed the “noninterventionist model of capitalism” and favored deficit spending and “stimulus packages” as bulwarks against economic depression—discussed with George Soros “the unique opportunity to reshape economics in the wake of the financial crisis.” Eight months later, Soros assembled 25 economists, financiers, and journalists in Bedford, New York to brainstorm the idea. This “Bedford Summit” resulted in a “unanimous agreement that our economic paradigm must change,” and a “recognition of the importance of empowering the young generation of economists to rethink” the field of economics. Toward that end, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) was created as a nonprofit foundation in October 2009; its initial funding came from a $50 million pledge by Soros’s Open Society Institute.
The so-called “Arab Spring,” which began in late 2010, was a momentous series of popular uprisings that swept – in rapid succession and with varying degrees of intensity and effect – through a host of countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. By February 2011, Tunisian president Ben Ali had stepped down after 22 years in power, and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarek had abdicated after 30 years. For the most part, the Western media – and the American left in particular – promoted the notion that the events in the Arab world were organic eruptions of rebellion launched spontaneously by oppressed populations who would no longer tolerate political tyranny and economic deprivation, and who longed to quench their own thirst for freedom and democracy.
Over time, it would become apparent that however strong the popular support for the Arab uprisings may have been, the hidden hand of an Islamist movement was also at work in fomenting and sustaining the revolts. This reality was driven home dramatically in the political events that took place where regimes had fallen. In post-Mubarak Egypt, this meant the rising influence of the Muslim Brotherhood – the ideological forebear of both Hamas and al Qaeda, and the spearhead of a movement aiming to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate (or kingdom) ruled by strict Islamic Law (Sharia). And in Tunisia, the first free elections of the post-Saleh era resulted in the triumph of the al-Nahda party, an Islamist movement which had opposed, sometimes violently, the existing regime. In short, the Arab Spring evolved into a Muslim Winter.
Notwithstanding these developments, Soros in late 2011 said: “A lot of positive things are happening. I see Africa together with the Arab Spring as areas of progress. The Arab Spring was a revolutionary development.” (mediachecker – > one wonders if Soros isn’t thinking of his own investments in that area of the world).

In July 2012, it was reported that Soros was among a group of donors who had already pledged their financial support for “Dump West,” a Democratic Super-PAC that planned to raise at least $5 million for the purpose of defeating conservative black Republican Allen West‘s bid for reelection to the House of Representatives. A key player in”Dump West” was national Democratic operative Charles Halloran, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asked lobbyist Larry Smith (a former U.S. congressman) to help line up initial funding for the Super-PAC.
In March 2013, Soros pledged to give, through his Open Society Foundations, $1 million to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. This was the largest grant that organization had received from a named donor in recent decades. The purpose of the grant was to help the NAACP fight challenges to the Voting Rights Act and oppose the implementation of Voter ID laws. In a statement, Soros said: “We need bold and courageous civil rights strategies if we are to achieve racial equality in this country.”




3 George Soros, The Alchemy of Finance (1994 edition), p. 362

4 George Soros, Underwriting Democracy, p. 3


6 “The Billionaire Who Built on Chaos – George Soros (The Independent: June 3, 1993)


  1. 8

9 Faisal Islam, “Rich Man, Wise Man” (Observer: March 10, 2002)

  1. 10 Anthony Gottlieb, “Who Wants To Be A Billionaire?” (The New York Times: March 3, 2002)

11 Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire, 2002, p. 293


13 “The Mind of George Soros; Meet the Esperanto Enthusiast Who Wants to Save the World from President Bush” (The Wall Street Journal: March 2, 2004)

14 Connie Bruck, “The World According to Soros” (The New Yorker: January 23, 1995); Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 157.


16,2933,602163,00.html#ixzz19pFJsPwd; Michael Lewis, “The Speculator,” New Republic (January 10-17, 1994).

17George Soros, Underwriting Democracy (1991), p. 170.


19David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 67

20 Nicola Chalton, ed., The Philosophers (2008), p. 159.

21 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 67-69; The Philosophers, pp. 158-159; George Soros, Soros on Soros (1995), p. 33.

22George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy (2004), p. 193

23 George Soros, The Alchemy of Finance (1994 edition), p. 13; George Soros, Soros on Soros (1995), p. 39.

24 Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire (2002), p. 83


26 ; David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 84-85

27 Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire (2002), p. 180.

28; Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 157.


30 George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy (2004), p. 136


32 Connie Bruck, “The World According to Soros” (The New Yorker: January 23, 1995)


34 George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000), p. 120



37 ;

38 ;




42 This figure derives from OSI’s IRS Forms 990 for the years 2000-2008.


















60 ;


62 Stanley Kurtz, Radical In Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010). (The Midwest Academy received $10,000 from OSI in 1997.)




66 Maria Puente, “Philanthropist Pledges $50M For Immigrants,” USA Today (October 1, 1996)






72 ; (The Brennan Center received $12 million from OSI from 1999-2008.)


74 (PSN was formerly known as the Progressive Action Legislative Network.)

75 ;




79 ;


81 (OSI poured millions of dollars into the coffers of, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance – Soros-funded operations which then funneled some of that money to Media Matters.)







88 ;

89 ; (This organization received $2.815 million from OSI during 2006-2008.)



92 (Sojourners received $325,000 from OSI during 2004-2007.)























115 Robert Patterson, War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (2007), p. 181.






121 Jim Freer, “George Soros,” Latin Trade (October 1998); Peter Schweitzer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 167.

122 Gene Marcial, “A Bright Gleam on Apex,” Business Week (June 14, 2004)







129 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. xxix




133 George Soros, “A Look At … The Drug War Debate,” The Washington Post (February 2, 1997)

134 George Soros, Soros on Soros (1995)


136 Joseph A. Califano Jr., “Devious Efforts To Legalize Drugs,” The Washington Post (December 4, 1996)


138 ;



141 Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 169.



144 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 135






150 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 89-90

151 Connie Bruck, “The World According to Soros” (The New Yorker: January 23, 1995)

152 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 91-93



155 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 93-94




159 Interview with George Soros, The Charlie Rose Show, PBS (November 30, 1995)

160 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 55

161 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 54

162 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 53-54

163 Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005), p. 69; George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy (2004), p. 42.

164 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), pp. 168, 179

165 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 222

166 George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy (2004), p. 94


168 George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy (2004), p. 123

169 George Soros, The Bubble of American Supremacy (2004), p. 30

170 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization (2002), p. xi

171 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization (2002), p. 155



174 These documents were intended to discredit America’s war effort as both immoral and unwinnable.

175 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 24

176 James L. Tyson, Target America (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1981), pp. 2, 200

177 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 11. (Interview with George Soros by Andrew Stevens, “The N.E.W. Show,” CNN (September 19, 2001).

178 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 18

179 Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005)

180 Greg Pierce, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times (March 3, 2003)

181 George Soros, “Bush’s Inflated Sense Of Supremacy,” Financial Times (March 13, 2003)

182; Thomas Hargrove, “Financier Donates $10M To Defeat Bush,” The Record [Bergen, NJ] (August 10, 2003)

183 “Soros Calls For ‘Regime Change’ In US,” BBC News Website September 30, 2003);

184 George Soros, “Bush’s Inflated Sense Of Supremacy,” Financial Times (March 13, 2003)

185 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 12

186 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), pp. viii, 10

187 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), pp. 12-13

188 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 10

189 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 4

190 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 26;×3136

191 Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune (October 27, 2003)

192 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), pp. 26, 53

193 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 53


195 George Soros, Remarks At National Press Club (Washington, DC: September 28, 2004)

196 Bernard Besserglik, “Soros Cuts Open Society Aid To Russia, Targets US,” Agence France Presse (June 9, 2003)

197 Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune (October 27, 2003);

198 Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets vs. Bush,” The Washington Post (November 11, 2003)

199 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 13

200 Greg Pierce, “Inside Politics,” The Washington Times (October 1, 2003)

201 Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets vs. Bush,” The Washington Post (November 11, 2003)

202 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 9

203 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 74)

204 George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000), p. 337

205 The term was derived from the fact that the movements designated specific colors or flowers as their symbols.


207 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 132

208 ;


210 ; ;

211 Neil Clark, “NS Profile—George Soros,” New Statesman (June 2, 2003)

212 “President Tudjman Criticizes Foreign Inyerference in Croatia’s Media,” BBC (December 11, 1996)

213 In this case and a few others, the rebels identified themselves with a color or a flower.


215 Mark MacKinnon, “Georgia Revolt Carried Mark of Soros,” Globe and Mail (November 26, 2003)

216 Franklin Foer, “Regime Change, Inc.: Peter Ackerman’s Quest to Topple Tyranny,” New Republic (April 25, 2005); David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 236-237


218 David Holley, “Soros Invests in His Democratic Passion: The Billionaire’s Open Society Institute Network Is Focusing on Central Asia Now,” Los Angeles Times (July 5, 2004)





223 Thomas B. Edsall, “Liberals Form Fund to Defeat President: Aim Is to Spend $75 Million for 2004,” Washington Post (August 8, 2003)

224 Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune (October 27, 2003)


226 Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets vs. Bush,” The Washington Post (November 11, 2003)

227 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 131-136

228 ; Ryan Sager, “Buying ‘Reform’: Media Missed Millionaires’ Scam,” New York Post (March 17, 2005)

229 ; Ryan Sager, “Buying ‘Reform’: Media Missed Millionaires’ Scam,” New York Post (March 17, 2005). (The other seven major contributors were the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million); the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million); the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million); the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million); the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million); the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million); and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).

230 Byron York, “The Soros Agenda: Free Speech for Billionaires Only,” Wall Street Journal (January 3, 2004); Byron York, “Democrats Throw The Spirit Of Reform Out The Window,” The Hill (November 5, 2003); Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005), p. 62.



233 ; David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 175-176

234 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 176

235 Republicans, meanwhile, did not build any comparable network of independent fundraising nonprofits to circumvent McCain-Feingold – probably because they historically had been successful at raising hard money.

236 Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005), p. 8

237 Richard Poe, “The Shadow Party: History, Goals, and Activities” (


239 (These 17 states were: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.)


241 Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets vs. Bush,” The Washington Post (November 11, 2003)

242 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 182

243 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 196-198

244 Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets vs. Bush,” The Washington Post (November 11, 2003)

245 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 189. (Among these were Clinton’s national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; former head of Clinton’s National Economic Council, Gene Sperling; and former senior advisor to Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget, Matt Miller.)

246 Matt Bai, “Notion Building,” New York Times Magazine (October12, 2003)












258 Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005), p. 61

259 Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005), pp. 86-87.

260 ; Michael Crowley, “Shadow Warriors,” New York Magazine (August 12, 2004).

261 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), pp. 193-194

262 Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “The New Soft Money,” Fortune (October 27, 2003)

263 Byron York, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (2005), p. 8




267 ;

268 (By August 2005, Stein had shown his PowerPoint presentation to more than 700 key people in private meetings.)


270; Among the attendees were former Clinton White House aides Mike McCurry and Sidney Blumenthal, and Schumann Center president Bill Moyers.


272 ;


274 ;




278 ; ;

279 ;


281 ;







288 ; ; ;







295 ;

296 ;



299 ;; Unless otherwise specified, information about DA grants made to these entities was furnished by the Capital Research Center.

300 ;









309 ;

310 (Note: In the 2010 congressional elections, when Republicans captured more than 60 House seats, two of Colorado’s Democratic House members lost to Republicans.)

311 Louis Jacobson, “New Organization to Push Liberal Measures,” Roll Call (June 23, 2005)










More at:

A couple of Soros’ early friends – birds of a feather comes to mind…

The Shared Agendas of George Soros and Barack Obama

By Discover The  Networks –
 February 2011

Obama’s anti-capitalist background and views are well documented: His father was a communist; his mother was a communist sympathizer;2 in his youth he was mentored by the communist Frank Marshall Davis; he sought out Marxist friends and professors at Occidental College; he attended Socialist Scholars Conferences in New York; he was trained in the community-organizing methods of Saul Alinsky, a communist fellow traveler; he developed close ties to the pro-socialist community organization ACORN; he developed close personal and political ties to the infamous Marxists (and former domestic terrorists) Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; he was hand-picked for his first political office by Alice Palmer, a pro-Soviet figure in Illinois; in the 1990s he became a member of the New Party, a socialist political coalition; he had close connections to the Midwest Academy, a radical training ground which author Stanley Kurtz has described as a “crypto-socialist organization”;3 and he spent twenty years attending the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preaches the Marxist doctrines of liberation theology. As President, Obama appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International as his “environment czar”;4 he employed a White House communications director (Anita Dunn) who cited Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers”;5 he appointed a “science czar,” John Holdren, who views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment;6 he appointed Van Jones, a longtime revolutionary communist, as his “green jobs czar”;7 and he strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders. The list, of course, could go on and on.
George Soros, too, harbors many negative views about capitalism and free markets. “The entire edifice of global financial markets has been erected on the false premise that markets can be left to their own devices,” says Soros. “We must find a new paradigm and rebuild from the ground up.”8 According to Soros, the capitalist “belief that everybody pursuing his self-interest will maximize the common interest … is a false idea.”9 Calling the global capitalist system “deeply flawed,” Soros maintains that “as long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations.”10 As Soros sees things, capitalism “is today a greater threat than any totalitarian ideology.”11 Lamenting that “the richest 1 percent of the world’s population receive as much as the poorest 57 percent,”12 Soros suggests that only by reining in “global capitalism” can that gap be narrowed. He further complains that global capitalism, by encouraging the free flow of money across international borders, reduces the vital “ability of the state to provide Social Security to its citizens.”13 “The globalization of financial markets has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete,” Soros explains, “because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can.”14
Soros’s proposed remedy for this problem is a worldwide war on poverty that would transform the entire planet into a global welfare state, a sort of open-society alliance where “a kind of international central bank” could redistribute wealth from rich populations to poor ones.15 Toward this end, Soros announced in September 2006 that he would donate $50 million to the United Nations Millennium Project, a massive redistributive scheme calling for the governments of wealthy countries to commit 0.7% of their GNP to promoting “the economic development and welfare of developing countries.”16 Heading this Project (from 2002-2006) was Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who had worked with Soros in Russia during the Bill Clinton administration. As evidenced by his participation in the Millennium Project,17 Sachs has radically altered his former pro-capitalist positions. Indeed, in recent times he has praised socialists as “both the heirs and the leaders of the world’s most important and most successful political path”; he has lauded their “strong commitment to universalist ethical principles and fiscal re-distribution”; and he has voiced regret that America’s lack of “commitment to re-distribution” has “enabled a massive underclass to develop.”18
Similarly, George Soros sees “the global capitalist system in its present form” as “a distortion of what ought to be a global open society.”19 He suggests that if the “market fundamentalism in America” were “eliminated,” then “the public interest would be better served” by way of “a more equal distribution of wealth.”20
In a November 2008 interview, Soros was asked whether he supported programs falling under the rubric of “big-government” or “European-style ‘socialism.’” He replied, “That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful—but also very harmful to our society.”21
In October 2009, Soros told a Central European University audience that “there is a deep-seated conflict between capitalism and open society.” He observed, moreover, that “Karl Marx[‘s] proposition” of communist redistributionism “was a very attractive idea” that might well have succeeded if not for the unfortunate fact that “the communist rulers put their own interests ahead of the interests of the people.”22 “The failure of the central planning model did not prove the validity of the free enterprise model,” says Soros. “… There is a better way of looking at the world. It is based on the postulate of radical fallibility, according to which all our constructs are flawed in one way or another. Specifically, both models—Communism and free enterprise, or market fundamentalism, as I have rechristened it—are deficient; the deficiency in each one can be cured only by taking some elements from the other.”23The Call for Global Government
Soros’s desire for a worldwide welfare structure is consistent with his general preference for some form of global government. In 1998 he wrote that “insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” “The greatest opposition to this idea,” he added somberly, “is coming from the United States.”24
Soros has continued to espouse this perspective ever since. At a 2003 event, a questioner asked Soros whether he and his foundations could “help to bring more foreign influence into the United States instead of relying on what is essentially a balance between Democrats and conservative Republicans, which hasn’t worked and is not about to start working.”Soros replied:
“I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order. And that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current setup. I don’t think you can correct it by giving the Chinese government a vote in Congress. But it is a flaw, and I think this is where American leadership is needed, to take into account and respect the interests of others as well, in order to retain the dominant position we currently enjoy.”25
This call for increased “foreign influence” in American political life is congruent with President Obama’s position on the matter. In March 2009, for instance, Obama appointed Harold Koh, the dean of Yale Law School, as legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. Koh is an advocate of transnationalism, a concept arguing in favor of “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. This perspective holds that the world’s most challenging problems are too complex and deep-rooted for any single country to address effectively on its own. The solution, says Koh, is for all members of the international community to recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides those of any particular government.26
In March 2007, Koh chastised the U.S. for having “unwisely disengaged from various institutions that promote fundamental human rights, chief among them the International Criminal Court [which would subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to those of an international tribunal] and the newly established Human Rights Council” of the United Nations¯a Council whose membership includes a number of nations known for their unrestrained anti-Semitism and human-rights abuses.27 President Obama ultimately announced, in 2009, that the U.S. would join the Council for the first time.28 In November 2010, this Council made headlines when it harshly berated America for its alleged discrimination against Muslims, its barbaric police practices, its use of torture against enemies abroad, and its religious intolerance.29
Another Obama official¯Eric P. Schwartz, the administration’s assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration¯formerly served as director of the U.S. Connect Fund, a Soros-financed organization that promotes global governance.30
Fiscal Policy
Just a few days after Barack Obama was elected President, George Soros stated: “I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets¯because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion-dollar range….”31
Soon thereafter, as one of the first priorities of his presidency, Obama pressured Congress to pass a monumental $787 billion economic-stimulus bill whose text was 1,071 pages long­¯and which few, if any, legislators read before voting on it. Obama stressed the urgency of passing this bill at the earliest possible moment, so as to forestall any further harm to the U.S. economy. Notably, the legislation repealed numerous essentials of the 1996 welfare-reform bill against which George Soros had so strongly rebelled.32 According to a Heritage Foundation report, 32 percent of the new stimulus bill—or an average of $6,700 in “new means-tested welfare spending” for every poor person in the U.S.—was earmarked for social-welfare programs.33 Such unprecedented levels of spending did not at all trouble Soros, who said: “At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable.”34 In December 2009, Obama concurred again—outlining a set of new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals while explaining that America must continue to “spend our way out of this recession.”35
In a 2008 interview with Bill Moyers, George Soros derided wealthy Americans who wished to have their tax burden lightened. According to Soros, such people were selfishly eager to “enjo[y] the fruits” of their affluence even as they viewed the act of “paying taxes” as “an absolute no-no”—indeed something veritably “unpatriotic.”36
By Soros’s telling, taxes are inherently desirable in good times and bad alike. In 2010, for instance, he stated that although the U.S. economy was in the midst of a prolonged downturn, it would be imprudent for lawmakers to extend the Bush-era tax cuts which were due to expire on January 1, 2011; such a course of action, he warned, would be “the wrong policy” and would cause the recession to deepen further.37 Soros proposed, instead, that the existing tax rates be permitted to return to their previous, higher levels, and that whatever extra revenue those elevated rates might generate should be used to finance yet another federal “stimulus” program.38 This suggestion was consistent with the funding priorities Soros has long pursued through his Open Society Institute. A substantial percentage of the organizations bankrolled by OSI favor high taxes to fill the coffers of an ever-expanding, government-run welfare state.
Likewise, Barack Obama’s long track record in support of high income taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate taxes for “the wealthy” is well documented.39 Thus it was not surprising that Obama, through most of his early presidency, adamantly opposed any extension of the Bush tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration date. But as the economy foundered and the President’s popularity waned—to say nothing of the historic losses suffered by congressional Democrats in the midterm elections—Obama began to restrict his calls for a tax hike only to those in the highest income brackets.40 In the end, the President, recognizing that the electorate fiercely opposed higher taxes for anyone, pragmatically agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two more years—a move that displeased George Soros greatly.41
Soros’s public stance in favor of higher tax rates for the wealthy is nothing short of remarkable, in light of the fact that he himself has taken some noteworthy measures to avoid paying taxes of his own. Consider, for instance, that his multi-billion-dollar Quantum Fund is actually incorporated on the tiny island of Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles, located in the Caribbean. As such, Soros avoids paying U.S. taxes on it. Americans who invest in his Fund likewise escape the tax man entirely. Their interest, dividends, and capital-gains earnings are taxed only if they are brought into the United States.42 And these investors are precisely the types of high earners who, according to Soros, should be willing to do their “patriotic” duty and pay the taxes that they can well afford; the minimum investment for the Quantum Fund is $100,000.43
By no means has the Quantum Fund been Soros’s only foray into tax-avoiding, offshore business enterprises. Indeed, Soros’s real-estate company, Mapeley Steps, is headquartered in yet another tax haven, Bermuda. In 2001 this firm purchased more than 600 buildings from Inland Revenue (Britain’s equivalent of the IRS) and then leased them to the British government for a princely sum—but paid no taxes, thanks to the Bermuda address.44
Just as Soros has spoken out against calls to reduce income taxes, so has he consistently sided against proposals to lower or eliminate the estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”), calling it “a valuable taxation” because it “does not interfere with wealth creation” and it “increases social equality.”45 In 2003, Soros and some fellow billionaires went so far as to sign a public letter stating that a repeal of the estate tax “would enrich the heirs of America’s millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet.”46 Yet Soros has creatively found a way for his own heirs to avoid paying any estate taxes, as he once explained:

“A charitable trust is a very interesting tax gimmick. The idea is that you commit your assets to a trust and you put a certain amount of money into charity every year. And then after you have given the money for however many years, the principal that remains can be left [to one’s heirs] without estate or gift tax. So this is the way I set up the trust for my children.”47

Environmental and Energy Policy
George Soros is an avid proponent of cap-and-trade,48 a tax-based policy proposal designed to reduce Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—and to speed up the nation’s transition to alternate forms of energy such as wind and solar power.
 The idea of cap-and-trade is founded on the planted axiom that the carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by human industrial activity create a greenhouse effect that is causing the earth’s climate to grow dangerously warm. Under cap-and-trade regulations, companies would be subject to taxes or fees if they exceed their government-imposed limit for CO2 emissions. Economists predict that such legislation, if enacted, would impose colossal costs on businesses¯costs that would be passed on to consumers, who in turn would pay anywhere from several hundred to several thousand extra dollars each year in energy costs.49 But to Soros, such a policy is well worth the price. “Dealing with global warming will require a lot of investment” and thus “will be painful,” he acknowledges, but “at least” it will enable humankind to “survive and not cook.” When asked in 2008 whether he was proposing energy policies that would “create a whole new paradigm for the economic model of the country, of the world,” Soros replied succinctly, “Yes.”50 By Soros’s reckoning, America today has “a great opportunity,” through cap-and-trade, “to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence.”51
In 2009, Soros announced that he intended to spend $10 million over a ten-year period to fund the formation of a new Climate Policy Initiative, designed to address global warming by “help[ing] nations achieve low-carbon development” in “the new energy economy.”52 In remarks he made at a January 2010 Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations, Soros impugned the U.S. as “the laggard” that, by not endorsing the initiatives which that been proposed a month earlier at an international climate-change conference in Copenhagen, had failed to provide adequate leadership with regard to environmental policy.53
Barack Obama, like Soros, is an unwavering backer of cap-and-trade. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “[U]nder my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.”54
The principal motive underlying the cap-and-trade policies that Obama and Soros support has been articulated by Obama’s “regulation czar,” Cass Sunstein, a longtime proponent of “distributive justice” whereby America would transfer much of its own wealth to poorer nations as compensation for the harm that U.S. environmental transgressions have allegedly caused in those countries. Sunstein speculates that “desirable redistribution” can be “accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”55
Transforming America Through Immigration
In the spring of 2006 and again a year later, television viewers were treated to innumerable images of massive throngs of demonstrators flooding the streets of cities all across the United States, as they protested America’s allegedly unjust and punitive immigration policies. The participants in these rallies demanded such things as amnesty for illegals, paths to citizenship, expanded guest-worker programs, loosened border controls, an end to workplace immigration raids, and a generalized expansion of rights and privileges for illegal immigrants in the United States. These grievance-filled spectacles generated considerable public anxiety; in their size, scope, and execution, they were reminiscent of the “velvet revolution” demonstrations that Soros had bankrolled in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The following groups¯all heavily funded by, or otherwise affiliated with, George Soros and his Open Society Institute¯were among the key organizers of the “immigrant-rights” demonstrations: ACORN, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Community Change, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the Gamaliel Foundation.56
The immigration-related agendas of Barack Obama fit hand-in-glove with those of the foregoing Soros-affiliated activist groups. Indeed, the President has repeatedly called for “comprehensive immigration reform”¯a euphemism for incremental amnesty. This is but an extension of the voting record that Obama compiled in the U.S. Senate, where he opposed workplace immigration raids; favored a “path to citizenship” so as to “bring people out of the shadows”; advocated laws that would permit illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses; supported the DREAM Act, which would allow illegals to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents; and opposed a Senate amendment calling for the withdrawal of federal assistance to “sanctuary cities” that flout federal immigration laws.57
In 2007 and 2008, Obama was a featured speaker at the annual conventions of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens. He lauded those in attendance for having worked so hard to “strengthe[n] America together.” “It’s been the work of this organization for four decades,” Obama said, “lifting up families and transforming communities across America. And for that, I honor you, I congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another forty years as extraordinary as your last.”58
While generally adorned with carefully crafted rhetoric of human rights and “family reunification,” there is in fact a more politically sinister motive underlying Obama’s and Soros’s support for groups that would not only transform illegals into U.S. citizens, but would also open the floodgates to further mass immigration from impoverished countries below America’s southern border. Obama and Soros alike are well aware that the vast majority of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, once naturalized, tend heavily to vote Democrat. Thus there is a great imperative to import, naturalize, and register as many of these voters as possible in the most expedient practicable manner.59 The ultimate, long-term objective is to establish a permanent Democratic voting bloc in the U.S. for generations to come.

A “Living” Constitution
With fidelity to his “open society” tenet that truth is an ever-evolving and ever-elusive concept, George Soros firmly rejects the notion that the U.S. Constitution is a document of unique or unrivaled merit¯or, by logical extension, that its original intent must be permanently revered and adhered to, rather than deconstructed or reinterpreted as the changing needs and preferences of the times may dictate. In April 2005, Soros’s Open Society Institute was a leading financial sponsor of a Yale Law School conference called “The Constitution in 2020,” promoted as an effort to produce “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.” Other major sponsors of the event included the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress¯both major recipients of Soros funding.60 Speakers at the conference repeatedly stressed the “evolutionary character of constitutional law”¯a premise crucial to the work of anyone who, like Soros, seeks to fundamentally transform a society.61
Barack Obama, who himself has openly vowed to “fundamentally transform” the United States, shares precisely this same view of the Constitution. In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Moreover, he asserted that, if elected to the White House, he would not appoint a strict constructionist¯one who seeks to apply the Constitution’s text as it is written and without further inference¯to the Supreme Court.62 True to his word, President Obama has thus far appointed two Supreme Court Justices¯Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan¯both of whom reject strict constructionism.
Sotomayor, for her part, is an advocate of legal realism, which the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) describes as a judicial philosophy that is “diametrically opposed to the concept of strict construction/originalism as advocated by conservative legal thinkers and judges.” TVC adds that according to legal realism: “[J]udges should do more than interpret the law or look to the original intent of the writers of the law or the Constitution. Judges should bring in outside influences from social sciences, psychology and politics, plus their own views, to craft the law….”
Suggesting that the public wrongly expects “the law to be static and predictable,” Sotomayor contends that courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the laws and adapting it [sic] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”63 Meanwhile, Elena Kagan has approvingly cited former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s assertion that the Constitution, “as originally drafted and conceived,” was “defective.”64

Promoting Socialized Medicine in the United States
As noted earlier, George Soros has long favored a greater role for government in the American healthcare system. During the political debate over “Obamacare” in 2009 and 2010, one of the most influential pro-reform coalitions was Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a vast network of organizations supporting, ideally, a “single-payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.65 HCAN’s strategy was to try to achieve such a system incrementally, first by implementing a “public option”—i.e., a government insurance agency to “compete” with private insurers, so that Americans would be “no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.”66 Because such an agency would not need to show a profit in order to remain in business, and because it could tax and regulate its private competitors in whatever fashion it pleased, this “public option” would inevitably force private insurers out of the industry.
In August 2009, Soros pledged to give HCAN $5 million to promote its campaign for reform.67 HCAN’s organizational members include a host of Soros-affiliated organizations, among which are such stalwarts as the ACLU, ACORN, the AFL-CIO, the AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Center for Community Change, the Gamaliel Foundation, the League of United Latin American Citizens,, the NAACP, the National Abortion Federation, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, the Progressive States Network, and USAction.68 Many of these member groups regularly receive large amounts of Soros funding directly from the Open Society Institute. Some of that money was undoubtedly used to bankroll the healthcare reform crusade, thus we can say with certainty that Soros’s real contributions to the cause far exceeded the $5 million he gave to HCAN.
Terrorism As a Criminal Matter, Rather Than an Act of War
Ever since the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, George Soros has emphasized that it is “more appropriate” for the U.S. government to treat such events as “crimes against humanity” rather than acts of war, and that a proper response thus involves “police work, not military action.”69 Numerous Soros-funded organizations espouse this view as well, as evidenced by their efforts to ensure that suspected terrorists are tried in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals.70 The latter venues, where military officers serve as the judges and jurors, are designed specifically to deal with offenses committed in the context of warfare. Significantly, they permit prosecutors to use secret evidence that may have been obtained by means of enhanced interrogation methods, whereas civilian courts forbid the admittance of such evidence. Among the Soros-funded groups that look with strong disfavor upon military tribunals are the American Constitution Society,71 the Center for Constitutional Rights,72 the American Civil Liberties Union,73 and Human Rights Watch.74
Their perspective is very much in line with that of Barack Obama. Immediately following his inauguration, in fact, Obama’s first act as U.S. President was to order the suspension of all military tribunals that had been established to adjudicate the cases of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which continued to house more than 200 al Qaeda and Taliban combatants captured by the American military during its post-9/11 wars in the Mideast.75 Obama, like Soros, favors a criminal-justice-oriented approach to terrorism and thus would prefer to try the perpetrators in civilian court¯where they would enjoy the enhanced rights and protections that such courts afford to all defendants.
This approach to terrorism has set the tone for every member of the Obama administration. In March 2009, for instance, Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano broke with her agency’s traditional practice of warning the American public about potential “terrorist” threats, and instead began referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”76 Two months later the Obama Justice Department¯again demonstrating its preference for treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue rather than as a military matter¯ordered the FBI to read Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.77 In November, the Obama administration announced that it planned to try five Guantanamo detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy in a civilian court.78
Then, on Christmas Day of 2009, a Nigerian al Qaeda operative boarded a Northwest Airlines flight (from Amsterdam to Detroit) and attempted, without success, to blow up the plane in midair with a powerful chemical bomb. In public remarks soon after the incident, President Obama referred to the man as an “isolated extremist” rather than as a terrorist or a jihadist. In subsequent days the administration announced that it would offer the perpetrator a plea agreement to persuade him to reveal what he knew about al Qaeda operations in Yemen; if such an arrangement could not be worked out, the government planned to try him in federal civilian court.79
****In November 2010, al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani¯responsible for the deaths of 224 people in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania¯became the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court and was acquitted on all but one of the charges against him.80

The “Responsibility to Protect
In March 2011, President Obama, without consulting Congress, authorized the involvement of the U.S. military in imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya, to prevent President Moammar Qaddafi’s forces from bombing rebels who were challenging his regime. On March 21, the White House announced the initiation of “a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”
According to reports, Samantha Power, Obama’s National Security Council special adviser on human rights, was instrumental in persuading Obama to take this action against Libya. Power is a longtime advocate of the doctrine known as the “Responsibility to Protect,” which encourages the international community to intervene in a particular country’s internal affairs — with military force if necessary — in order to thwart genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, which is the world’s leading advocate of this doctrine, is funded by the Open Society Institute. In a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, George Soros himself discussed the fundamentals of the Responsibility to Protect, writing:

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.”

Organizations Where the Soros and Obama Agendas Intersect
By way of the many hundreds of pro-Obama groups that George Soros funds on a regular basis, there are literally thousands of political and financial ties that exist between Soros and the President. A comprehensive discussion of these connections could more than fill the pages of a large book. Nevertheless, a few key entities that serve as vital contact points in the Obama-Soros relationship are well worth noting here.
Center for American Progress
The Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) may well have more influence on the Obama presidency than any other organization in existence. This left-wing think tank formulates policy for the administration and supplies the White House with a steady stream of talking points designed to make that policy palatable to the public. In fact, as of December 2008, before then-President-elect Obama had even taken his oath of office, he had already pledged his intent to fulfill some of CAP’s chief policy recommendations. These included the Center’s call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq coupled with a buildup of forces in Afghanistan, a plan to implement universal health coverage, and a plan to create “green jobs” designed to combat “global warming.”81 According to, CAP “has become … an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the … Obama administration.”82
Emblematic of this was the synergy that Obama and CAP displayed in dealing with the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the spring of 2010.83 In May and June of that year, when the crisis was at its height,84 Obama took his cue from the Center on a number of important occasions.

For example:

  • On May 4, CAP’s energy and environment expert, Daniel Weiss, advised Obama to create an independent commission to examine the causes of the crisis; eighteen days later, the President did exactly that.
  • On May 21, CAP president John Podesta privately exhorted White House officials to name someone to be the public point person for the oil-spill response. A week later, the Obama administration announced that Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen would fill that role.
  • On May 26, Daniel Weiss advised the White House to demand that BP immediately set up a multi-billion-dollar escrow account to pay damage claims to Gulf-state residents harmed by the spill. Some three weeks later, Obama issued precisely that demand.85

On virtually every policy matter—health-care reform, fiscal policy, civil rights, immigration, housing, labor, national security, foreign policy, media, energy, or the environment—CAP’s recommendations fit hand-in-glove with the Obama administration’s values and agendas. In many cases, as in the examples cited above, the administration actually follows CAP’s instructions. In a very real sense, George Soros dictates his policy recommendations to the Obama White House through the Center for American Progress.

International Crisis Group
One of the more significant beneficiaries of George Soros’s funding is the International Crisis Group (ICG), a nonprofit organization that makes policy recommendations ostensibly designed to foster goodwill among nations.86 In 2008, the Open Society Institute gave a whopping $5 million to this entity,87 on whose executive committee Soros himself sits.88 One of ICG’s leading figures is its Mideast director, Robert Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer who in 2007 was named as a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign.
Obama has long held Malley, who formerly served in the Clinton administration, in high regard as a policy analyst. Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.89 These views are of a piece with George Soros’s “open society” ideal, whose moral relativism leads inescapably to the conclusion that one man’s terrorist is indeed another man’s freedom fighter¯and, by logical extension, that no nation should be so proud as to be unwilling to conduct diplomacy with its foes. In mid-2008, however, the Obama campaign severed its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that the ICG official had quietly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.90
Notwithstanding Malley’s fall from grace, Barack Obama’s foreign policies have been, from the outset of his presidency, very much in line with the recommendations of the Soros-funded ICG. For one, Obama has often emphasized his willingness to negotiate with even the most unyielding enemies of the United States, and has sought to persuade Israel to take that same approach. Six days after his inauguration, for instance, Obama granted his first television interview as U.S. President to Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based network, where he stated: “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating … and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” He subsequently called on Israel to drop its “preconceptions” and negotiate for peace with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose founding charter remains irrevocably committed to the permanent destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. Obama further signaled an eagerness to conduct “unconditional talks” on nuclear matters with Iran91¯even as that nation was actively supplying high-tech weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, and even after its president had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”92 Not long thereafter, the Obama administration announced its desire to negotiate with Taliban “moderates,” with the aim of bringing the war in Afghanistan to a close.93
J Street
J Street was founded in 2008 “to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli … conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.” Key to achieving this objective, says the organization, will be the development of “a new direction for American policy in the Middle East,” a direction that recognizes “the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own”—where Palestine and Israel exist “side-by-side in peace and security.”94 Toward this end, J Street supports “diplomatic solutions over military ones,” “multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution,” and “dialogue over confrontation.”95 Israel’s partner in such a dialogue would necessarily be Hamas, which holds the reins of political power in Gaza and steadfastly denies Israel’s right to exist. Yet J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and especially since June 2007 when it took complete control.”96 In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”97
The foregoing positions are largely indistinguishable from those of President Obama, who likewise favors a two-state solution whereby Israel and “a sovereign Palestine” would live “side by side—in peace.”98 To achieve such a resolution, he says, initiatives to construct additional Israeli settlements in the West Bank “have to be stopped.”99 In October 2009, Obama signaled his support for J Street’s agendas when he sent national security advisor James Jones to deliver the keynote address at a J Street conference.100
Another avid supporter of J Street is George Soros, though the billionaire initially tried to conceal that support from the public—for fear that his controversial reputation might scare off other potential backers. But in September 2010 The Washington Times revealed that from 2008-2010, Soros and his two children—Jonathan and Andrea—had given a total of $750,000 to the organization.101 It is worth noting, moreover, that J Street’s Advisory Council includes a number of individuals with very close ties to Soros.102 Among them are the following:

Soros shares J Street’s belief that Israel should recognize, and negotiate with, the Hamas-led Palestinian government. In the April 12, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros penned an article titled “On Israel, America and AIPAC,”103 wherein he derided the Bush administration for “committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East” by “supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization.” In Soros’ calculus, “This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East.” Added Soros:

“Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians … [B]oth Israel and the United States seem to be frozen in their unwillingness to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. The sticking point is Hamas’s unwillingness to recognize the existence of Israel; but that [recognition] could be made a condition for an eventual settlement rather than a precondition for negotiations.… The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation—not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one—has reached a particularly dangerous point.”104

By no means is Hamas the only Islamic terrorist organization which Soros views as a legitimate political entity and a suitable negotiating partner for Israel. Indeed, in early February 2011 he cast Hamas’s ideological comrade, the Muslim Brotherhood,105 in much the same light. At the time, a massive wave of violent riots were taking place in Egypt—ostensibly triggered by public discontent over Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic rule, governmental corruption, and the country’s widespread poverty.106 Meanwhile, there was much speculation that if Mubarak were to be forced out of office, the Brotherhood was likely to fill the power vacuum. Said Soros:

“President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for [a new Egyptian government of] dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America’s leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes [such as Mubarak’s]. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system.”107

Soros made that assertion even though:
(a) The Muslim Brotherhood—a supporter of Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad108—had made it explicitly clear that it favored the dissolution of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
(b) The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, had stated that his organization has never recognized Israel and never will, adding: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine. If they want their own state, our only option is to object.”109
(c) Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”110
Notwithstanding the Brotherhood’s unequivocal contempt for Israel and the Jews, Soros lamented that “the main stumbling block” likely to prevent that organization from becoming part of a new “democracy” in Egypt “is Israel.”111 “In reality,” said Soros, “Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him.”112
As Aaron Klein reported in WorldNetDaily on February 6, 2011, the Middle East and North Africa Initiative of the Open Society Institute had recently provided “numerous grants to a wide range of projects that promote so-called democratic issues across the region, including in Egypt.”113 Some four months before the rioting started, OSI was seeking to expand its work in Egypt by hiring a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which was run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative.114 OSI had also bankrolled the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio Kalima,115 a leading promoter of the January 2011 riots that forced Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to resign on January 14.116

American Constitution Society
Heavily funded by the Open Society Institute, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is a Washington, DC-based think tank that seeks to push American jurisprudence ever-further to the left politically.
In June 2008, ACS board member Eric Holder, whom president-elect Barack Obama would name as his choice for Attorney General five months later, spoke at an ACS convention. Predicting an Obama victory in the November election, Holder told his audience that the U.S. soon would be “run by progressives”¯of whom a “substantial number” were likely to be ACS members.117 By December 2008, several major ACS figures already had secured positions in the forthcoming Obama administration.118 That very month, in fact, one particularly influential former member of the ACS board of advisors, Hillary Clinton, was chosen to serve as Obama’s secretary of state.
ACORN and Project Vote
Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern writes that the Shadow Party member-group ACORN, while professing its dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact “promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor”¯pushing for “ever more government control of the economy” and “anti-capitalist redistributionism.”119 ACORN’s Independent Advisory Council has featured such Soros-affiliated luminaries as Andrew Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, and John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress.120
Obama, for his part, was the attorney for ACORN’s lead election-law cases before joining the Illinois legislature.121 Also in the early to mid-1990s, he helped train ACORN’s staff in the art of radical community organizing.122 In 1995 Obama sued, on behalf of ACORN, for the implementation of an Illinois motor-voter law which ultimately would become a breeding ground for voter fraud.123 He also served for several years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which awarded a number of sizable grants to ACORN.124 When ACORN officially endorsed Obama for U.S. President in February 2008, the candidate welcomed the endorsement and told an audience of ACORN workers and supporters: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career.”125 That same year, Obama’s presidential campaign quietly gave one of ACORN’s front groups some $800,000 to fund a voter-registration drive on the senator’s behalf.126 As of October 2008, ACORN was under investigation for voter-registration fraud in 13 states.127
Project Vote is ACORN’s Soros-funded voter-mobilization arm. From April to November of 1992, Barack Obama was director of the organization’s Illinois chapter.128 In 2008, Obama’s presidential campaign furnished Project Vote with a list of donors who had already given the campaign the maximum sum of money permitted by law. In turn, Project Vote representatives contacted those donors and urged them to make contributions to the ACORN affiliate¯funds which could then be used to support Obama’s candidacy while technically complying with election-law limits on campaign donations.129 That same year, the Open Society Institute gave Project Vote $400,000.130
In a massive mobilization aimed at helping Barack Obama win the presidency in 2008, this powerful Soros-affiliated organization dispatched approximately a million volunteers to work on Obama’s campaign nationwide¯600,000 in battleground states and 400,000 in non-battleground states. In addition, MoveOn registered more than half a million young Obama supporters to vote in the battleground states, while adding a million young people to its membership rolls during the summer of 2008. All told, MoveOn and its members contributed more than $58 million directly to the Obama campaign, while raising and spending at least an additional $30 million in independent election efforts on behalf of other Democrats across the United States.131 In November 2003, Soros pledged $5 million to MoveOn.132
More Soros-Obama Connections
Following is a brief overview of some prominent individuals with close political ties to Barack Obama on the one hand, and who also have been influenced in some significant way by George Soros’s money, on the other.

Van Jones
A self-professed revolutionary communist who has long endeavored to ignite transformative revolution in the United States,133 Van Jones spent six months as President Obama’s “green jobs czar” in 2009, until public controversy over his recently exposed radical past forced him to resign.
From 1996-2007, Jones headed the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which, claiming that the American criminal-justice system was infested with racism, sought to promote alternatives to incarceration.134 Between 1999 and 2009, the Baker Center received more than $1 million from George Soros‘s Open Society Institute.135
In 2007 Jones launched Green For All (GFA), an organization “dedicated to building an inclusive green economy” that would provide a vehicle for large-scale wealth redistribution.136 One of GFA’s major funders is the Open Society Institute ($75,000 in 2008).137
Over the years, Jones has been a board member of numerous environmental and nonprofit organizations, including the Soros-funded Free Press and the environmentalist group Apollo Alliance, which was launched by the Soros-backed Tides Foundation.138 The Apollo Alliance helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation that President Obama signed into law in early 2009. Specifically, the organization had a hand in writing the “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $86 billion was earmarked.139
Today, Jones serves as one of twenty advisors to the Colorado-based Presidential Climate Action Project, which makes climate-policy recommendations for the Obama White House.140 Jones is also a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP)¯the think tank that promotes virtually all of Obama’s political agendas.141
Andrew Stern
Former New Leftist Andrew Stern served as president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the second-largest labor union in North America, from 1996 until April 2010. He was trained in the tactics of radical activism at the Midwest Academy, which received $10,000 from Soros in 1997. Stern also helped form America Votes, a Soros-funded coalition of grassroots, get-out-the-vote organizations.
And he sat on the executive committee of America Coming Together, to which Soros famously gave $10 million in 2003.142
In 2008, Stern’s SEIU spent approximately $60.7 million to help elect Barack Obama to the White House¯deploying some 100,000 pro-Obama volunteers during the campaign.143 Stern went on to become an immensely influential advisor to President Obama. As of October 30, 2009, the union magnate had visited the White House 22 times since Obama’s inauguration¯more than any other individual.144
In February 2010, Obama appointed Stern to sit on a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.145
David Axelrod

David Axelrod serves as a key strategist for Barck Obama. In 2004, Axelrod’s political consulting firm received at least $229,000 from the Media Fund, a Soros-backed Shadow Party organization which ran some $53 million in pro-John Kerry presidential campaign ads.146
Carol Browner
On January 22, 2009, President Obama named Carol Browner to serve as his “environment czar.” Browner previously had been a “commissioner” with the Socialist International, an umbrella group for scores of “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. She is currently a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Center for American Progress, and the League of Conservation Voters¯all of which are funded by George Soros.147

Anna Burger
Called “the most powerful women in the labor movement” by Fortune magazine and nicknamed the “Queen of Labor,” Anna Burger is dedicated to building the progressive movement in the United States. She has had a long career with the SEIU, where she currently serves as international secretary-treasurer.148 In February 2009, President Obama appointed her to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
 Burger is also vice chair of the Soros-affiliated Democracy Alliance.149
Kevin Jennings
In 1990 Kevin Jennings established the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a Boston-area organization that is funded, in part, by the Open Society Institute.150 In June 2009, President Obama appointed Jennings as assistant deputy secretary of education¯or “education czar.”
Mark Lloyd

A great admirer of Venezuela’s Communist president Hugo Chavez, Mark Lloyd has served as a consultant to the Open Society Institute and as vice president of strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a legislative advocacy group that receives financial backing from George Soros. In July 2009, Lloyd, a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, was appointed as President Obama’s diversity chief at the Federal Communications Commission.151
Jim Wallis

A former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this self-described activist preacher has long championed the cause of communism. Unremittingly critical of the free-market system, Wallis has often impugned capitalism for its historical lack of success. “Our systems have failed the poor and they have failed the earth,” he says. “They have failed the creation.”152 In a January 2006 radio interview with Interfaith Voices, Wallis was asked to clarify whether he was in fact “calling for the redistribution of wealth in society.” He replied, “Absolutely, without any hesitation. That’s what the gospel is all about.”153 Today Wallis is a spiritual advisor to President Obama.
George SorosOpen Society Institute has made grants to Sojourners, the leftist publication that Wallis founded, in the amounts of $200,000 in 2004,154 $25,000 in 2006,155 and $100,000 in 2007.156




3 Stanley Kurtz, Radical In Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010)

4 (The reference is to Carol Browner.)

5 (The reference is to Anita Dunn.)

6 (The reference is to John Holdren.)

7 (The reference is to Van Jones.)



10 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), p. 102

11 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), pp. xvii

12 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. 10

13 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. 203

14 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. 3

15 George Soros, “Avoiding a Breakdown: Asia’s Crisis Demands a Rethink of International Regulation,” Financial Times of London (December 31, 1997); George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000), p. 276.

16 ;



19 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. viii




23 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), pp. 168-169

24 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. xxix


26 ;

27 ; (Among the member nations are China, Cuba, Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.)






33 ;









42 Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire, 2002, p. 135; Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), pp. 164-165.

43 Charles Ellis and James Vertin, Wall Street People: True Stories of Today’s Masters and Moguls, Volume 2 (2001), p. 112.

44 “Revenue Sells 600 Buildings to Bermuda-Based Company.” Trends and Developments, Volume 8, Issue 10 (October 2002); Cited in Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 165.


46 David Kay Johnston, “Dozens of Rich Americans Join in Fight to Retain Estate Tax,” New York Times (February 14, 2001)

47 Quoted in Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire; Cited in Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), pp. 165-166.





52 ;




56 Ben Johnson, “Who’s Behind the Immigration Rallies?” (March 29, 2006)



59 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 103

60 Richard Poe, “Soros Rewrites U.S. Constitution,” (April 9, 2005)

61 Scott Johnson, “The $80,000 Misunderstanding,” (April 9, 2005)








69 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 18

70; George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 38.
















































118 (Executive Director Lisa Brown had been named as Obama’s White House Staff Secretary. ACS Board of Directors member Goodwin Liu had been named to the Obama-Biden transition team. Joining Liu on the transition team was another ACS Board of Directors member, Dawn Johnsen. Former ACS staffer Melody Barnes had been selected to direct the Obama administration’s Domestic Policy Council. Former ACS Board member Ronald Klain had been named chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden.




122; Frank De Zutter, “What Makes Obama Run?” Chicago Reader (December 8, 1995)


124 (These grants included $45,000 in 2000, $75,000 in 2001, and $70,000 in 2002.)


126 ;



129 ;







136 ;










146 ;











More at:

George Soros – Muckety 2009

October 17, 2009 | 11:07 PM

George Soros lives and/or works in New York, NY.
Financial information: As an officer, director and/or owner of publicly traded securities, George Soros has filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

George Soros personal relations:
Alexander Soros – son
Andrea Soros – daughter
Daisy Soros – sister-in-law
Gregory Soros – son
Jeffrey Soros – nephew
Jonathan Soros – son
Paul Soros – brother
Robert Soros – son
Susan Weber Soros – spouse
Michael Vachon – political director
Other current George Soros relationships: America Coming Together – supporter
Brain Trauma Foundation – director
Center for American Progress – supporter
Clinton Global Initiative – member
Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy – major donor
Democracy Alliance – member
Drug Policy Alliance – director
Earth Institute – advisory board member
International Crisis Group – board member
Joint Victory Campaign 2004 – supporter – contributor
Open Society Institute – founder & chairman
Quantum Fund – founder
Soros Economic Development Fund – founder
Soros Fund Management – founder
George Soros past relationships:2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign – contributor
Alpha magazine list of top hedge fund earners, 2008 – No. 4
Alpha magazine list of top hedge fund earners, 2007 – No. 2
America Coming Together – contributor
Barack Obama inaugural committee – major contributor
Catalist – investor
Harlem Children’s Zone – benefactor
Joint Victory Campaign – contributor
Media Fund – contributor
Mark Schwartz – senior adviser
Annaliese Witschak Soros – spouse (mediachecker -> ex-spouse)
World Economic Forum 2008 – attendee
World Economic Forum 2009 – attendee
William D. Zabel – divorce lawyer

George Soros connections, once removed:

George Soros is connected to …
Acumen Fund >> through Andrea Soros   >> Map it!
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts >> through Daisy Soros   >> Map it!
Paul Soros Investments LLC >> through Paul Soros   >> Map it!
Society of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center >> through Daisy Soros   >> Map it!
Soros Fund Management >> through Michael Vachon    >> Map it!
TechnoServe >> through Paul Soros   >> Map it!
Trace Foundation >> through Andrea Soros   >> Map it!
Center for Progressive Leadership >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
NDN >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Women’s Voices. Women Vote. >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Young Democrats of America >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Young People For >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Small to Medium Enterprise Investment Co. >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Brooklyn Museum >> through Susan Weber Soros   >> Map it!
Parrish Art Museum >> through Susan Weber Soros   >> Map it!
Reuben Abraham >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Morton I. Abramowitz >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Kenneth L. Adelman >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Nasser Ahmad >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Nancy Kassebaum Baker >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Zbigniew Brzezinski >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Susie Tompkins Buell >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Anna Burger >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Kim Campbell >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Francois Chateau >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Wesley K. Clark >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Edgar M. Cullman Jr. >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Neal DeLaurentis >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Ralph Destino >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Christine V. Downton >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Pamela Drexel >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Robert H. Dugger >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Albert J. Dwoskin >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Maria E. Garces Campagna >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Maryam Elahi >> through Open Society Institute   >> Map it!
Jodie Evans >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
James E. Ferguson II >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Jason Flom >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Gail Furman >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Leslie H. Gelb >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Jamshid Ghajar >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Frank Giustra >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Ira Glasser >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
James D. Golin >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Morton H. Halperin >> through Open Society Institute   >> Map it!
Carl Hart >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Kenneth Hertz >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Carla A. Hills >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Robert A. Johnson >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
James V. Kimsey >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Mathilde Krim >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Joanne Leedom-Ackerman >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
David D. Lewis >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Pamela Lichty >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Paul J. Manafort >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Robert McKay >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
George J. Mitchell >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Ethan Nadelmann >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Aryeh Neier >> through Open Society Institute   >> Map it!
Hassan Nemazee >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Pamela J. Newman >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Robert G. Newman >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Stewart J. Paperin >> through Open Society Institute   >> Map it!
Stewart J. Paperin >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Sarah Jessica Parker >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Steve Phillips >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Thomas R. Pickering >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Drummond Pike >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Samantha Power >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Alan G. Quasha >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Steven C. Rockefeller >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Charles S. Rodgers >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Andrew Romay >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Susan W. Rose >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Deborah Sagner >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Mark L. Schneider >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Douglas E. Schoen >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Stephen J. Solarz >> through International Crisis Group   >> Map it!
Jonathan Soros >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Robert Soros >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Rob Stein >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Herbert Sturz >> through Soros Economic Development Fund    >> Map it!
Michael Vachon >> through Democracy Alliance   >> Map it!
Elizabeth H. van Merkensteijn >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
John Vasconcellos >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Deborah Ward >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Christina H. Wilson >> through Brain Trauma Foundation   >> Map it!
Richard B. Wolf >> through Drug Policy Alliance   >> Map it!
Note: This may be a partial list. Click on the map above to explore more connections.
George Soros campaign contributions: (Donations of $3,000 or more during 2007-2008 cycle)
Actblue – $6,900 on 5/11/2008
Nebraskans for Kleeb – $4,600 on 5/13/2008
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – $21,750 on 6/29/2007
Democratic National Committee – $21,750 on 6/30/2007
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – $21,750 on 6/29/2007
Major contributions to state-level political organizations & campaigns:Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation (CA) – $400,000 on 8/28/2008
Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation (CA) – $1,000,000 on 1/25/2008
Contributions to political organizations (other than PACs or campaigns): Barack Obama inauguration – $50,000
Recommended reading: Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, by Michael T. Kaufman

Muckety 2009 – it’s changed since then which is why I’m posting this profile.

Soros’ current Muckety profile


The Apotheosis of George Soros

In Freedom House’s 2007 Annual Report, the Open Society Institute is listed as one of the foundation’s donors (“Freedom House Annual Report 2007). At its website, the Open Society is described as a foundation founded by George Soros, a Hungarian-American investor and chairman of the Soros Fund Management, LLC, “to help countries make the transition from communism” (“About the Open Society Foundations”).

One of the richest men in the world, Soros gained a reputation as a stalwart opponent of the Bush Administration in 2003. In particular, Soros derided Bush’s transparent militarism and unilateral approach. Yet, while Soros decried Bush’s meddlesome foreign policy, he shares the former President’s adherence to the interventionist outlook. The point of departure is Soros’ emphasis upon a soft power approach to conquest. Neil Clark elaborates on this point of departure:

***Soros is angry not with Bush’s aims – of extending Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself – but with the crass and blundering way Bush is going about it. By making US ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the “free world” so skillfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons have blown it.***

As a cultivated and educated man (a degree in philosophy from the London School of Economics, honorary degrees from the Universities of Oxford, Yale, Bologna and Budapest), Soros knows too well that empires perish when they overstep the mark and provoke the formation of counter-alliances. He understands that the Clintonian approach of multilateralism – whereby the US cajoles or bribes but never does anything so crude as to threaten – is the only one that will allow the empire to endure. Bush’s policies have led to a divided Europe, Nato in disarray, the genesis of a new Franco-German-Russian alliance and the first meaningful steps towards Arab unity since Nasser.

***Soros knows a better way – armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country’s assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.***(Clark)

As was previously stated, the dialectical commonalities between the unilateral and multilateral forms of interventionism render sectarian struggles such as those between Bush and Soros rather superficial. In both instances, the nation-state system is weakened and an onerous supra-national authority is enshrined. Democratic governance does not fare well in either case.

The Open Society’s activities “have grown to encompass the United States and more than 70 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America” (“About the Open Society Foundation”). Waving an extremely euphemistic banner, Soros and his institute claims to “work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens” (ibid).

Yet like Freedom House and the NED, Soros and his Open Society Institute seems to be using “democracy” as a pretext for destabilizing countries that have fallen out of favor with deviant elites. The “Rose Revolution” that took place in the country of Georgia in 2003 provides an example of the destabilization campaigns Soros conducts through the Open Society Institute. In a Globe and Mail article entitled “Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros,” Mark MacKinnon states that in February of 2003 the Open Society provided funds to Giga Bokeria, a 31-year-old Tblisi activist, so that he could “meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milsevic” (“Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros”). This was the same group that received NED funding when deviant elites decided to bring revolutionary change to Serbia.

With Otpor training and funding from Soros’ Open Society, Bokeria helped found the Liberty Institute (ibid). The organization became an integral part of the movement dedicated to toppling Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze. The Liberty Institute, writes MacKinnon, “was instrumental in organizing the street protests that eventually forced Mr. Shevardnadze to sign his resignation papers” (ibid).

Apparently, Shevardnadze was not ignorant of Soros’ intentions to remove him from office. The beleaguered president publicly denounced Soros and warned the Hungarian-American financier to stop interfering in Georgian politics. MacKinnon elaborates:

“George Soros is set against the President of Georgia,” [Shevardnadze] said during a news conference in Tblisi a week before his resignation – it was at least the third time during the protests that he had complained about Mr. Soros. He threatened to shut down Open Society’s offices, saying it was not Mr. Soros’ business “to get involved in the political processes.” (ibid)

In MacKinnon’s article, Bokeria identifies three organizations as the chief participants in the movement that destabilized Shevardnadze’s government: Saakashvili’s National Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station, and the youth group Kmara, which means “Georgian for Enough” in English (ibid). All three of these organizations, according to MacKinnon, were connected to Soros. Kmara was the recipient of a $500,000 starting grant, apparently given by Soros (ibid). MacKinnon states that some of the Soros money may have been used by Kmara to bus demonstrators in from the Georgian countryside for protests that took place on the streets surrounding the parliament building (ibid).

Every good destabilization campaign benefits from a propaganda fount and Georgian television station Rustavi-2 certainly played that role during the “Rose Revolution.” Rustavi-1 was launched in 1995 with start-up money provided by Soros (ibid). When Rustavi-2 decided to start an anti-Shevardnadze newspaper called 24 Hours, Soros again came through with funds (ibid).

The television station’s anti-Shevardnadze activities included airing a cartoon called Our Yard (mediachecker ->Our Yard??? – reminds me of Saul Alinsky), which, according to MacKinnon, portrayed the Georgian president “as a crooked double-dealer” (ibid). Twice the station was shut down for broadcasting anti-Shevardnadze reports that asserted corruption in the government (ibid). Rustavi-2 also shown its audiences exit polls conducted by American NGOs that called the official results of the Nov. 2, 2003 parliamentary election into question (ibid). The exit poll report reflected the opinion expressed by Soros at a 2002 news conference in Moscow. During the conference, Soros suggested that “Shevardnadze’s government could not be trusted to hold a proper parliamentary election in 2003 (mediachecker -> and crooked elections has been the refrain from almost all the countries involved in soros’ arab spring – it’s truly none of his or our business – period)” (ibid).

Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian politician who was Shevardnadze’s primary rival at the time, enjoys what MacKinnon describes as “a warm relationship” with George Soros (ibid). He was even a recipient of the Open Society Award, which was personally given to him by Soros (ibid). The alliance between the two began in 2000, when Soros visited Georgia with the goal of establishing a Georgian office of the Open Society (ibid). While Soros had been invited to Georgia by Shevardnadze, it was Saakashvili who caught the Hungarian American’s eye. During the trip, Soros “met with Mr. Saakashvili and publicly praised a program the then-justice-minister was promoting to tackle the country’s corruption problem” (ibid). Soros’ relationship with Shevardnadze went back to the eighties (ibid). It began to deteriorate, however, when Saakashvili left the Georgian government, citing Shevardnadze’s sluggish response to corruption as the reason for his departure (ibid).

***The Soros-sponsored toppling of the Shevardnadze government did not result in a more free and open Georgia. Saakashvili, the man who promised to sweep corruption from Georgia’s political landscape, proved to be even more corrupt than his predecessor. Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way elaborates:

Notwithstanding important successes in state-building, the Saakashvili government was not democratic. Media harassment persisted, including tax raids of independent television stations, prosecution of journalists, and government pressure to cancel programs critical of Saakashvili. The Rustavi 2 TV station was “effectively taken over by the state through government-controlled interests” and begun “cheering rather than scrutinizing” government activities. The judiciary was packed, and government critics were occasionally arrested and, in a few cases, charged with treason. For example, the government enforced anticorruption laws selectively, “arresting and punishing political enemies while leaving supporters untouched.”

***In late 2007, Irakli Okruashvili – a former defense minister who was viewed as a potential challenger to Saakashvili – was arrested and charged with corruption (he later fled into exile). The arrest triggered a wave of opposition protests, and in November, the government responded by violently breaking up demonstrations and declaring a state of emergency in which demonstrations were banned, private news – broadcasting was suspended, and several television stations – including the most influential opposition station, Imedi – were taken off the air. Saakashvili then called early presidential elections for January 2008. The election was marred by abuse of state resources, media bias, harassment and intimidation of opposition supporters, at least some restrictions on opposition campaigning, and numerous irregularities in voting and vote-counting. Saakashvili won easily. (227)

The similarities between the Rose Revolution and the Egyptian Revolution suggest that Soros has applied the same revolutionary model in the Egypt. As was the case with Shevardnadze’s Georgia, the Soros syndicate initially enjoyed a much warmer relationship with Mubarak’s government. Former White House chief of staff John Podesta and his brother Tony are illustrative of this observation. John Podesta is the current President of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a public policy research and advocacy organization (“American Progress Staff”). Journalist Matt Bai has named George Soros as one of the “big donors” providing funds for the center’s operating budget (Bai).

As protests and social unrest began to emerge on the streets of Egypt, the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group, began exploring the Podesta brothers’ ties to the Egyptian government. The foundation’s Paul Blumenthal revealed that Tony Podesta is a major player in the PLM Group, an organization that lobbies Washington on behalf of Egypt (Blumenthal). This group acts the umbrella organization for three lobbying firms: former House Republican Majority Leader Bob Livingston’s Livingston Group, former Democratic congressional representative Toby Moffett’s Moffett Group and the Podesta Group (ibid). John and Tony Podesta founded the Podesta Group in 1988 (“Podesta Group”).

In a January 28, 2011 Salon article entitled “Who’s doing Mubarak’s bidding in Washington,” Justin Elliott states that the Podesta Group “profited handsomely” from its lobbying work on behalf of Mubarak’s government (Elliott). Elliott continues: “The Egyptian government in 2007 signed a deal to pay $1.1 million annually, plus expenses, to the PLM Group, which was a joint venture of the Podesta Group and the Republican firm the Livingston Group” (ibid).

Yet, while they made lucrative enterprise out of doing business with Mubarak, the Podesta brothers had no qualms with betraying the Egyptian president. This betrayal was made evident by a CAP article entitled, “The Obama Administration’s Next Steps in Egypt: More Proactive Efforts Are Needed.” Authored by Brian Katulis, the piece cited “the broad engagement with the diverse political opposition in Egypt by U.S. diplomats” as an integral component in Obama’s diplomatic approach during the Egyptian crisis (Katulis). Katulis also prescribed the legitimization of Egypt’s largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, stating: “…it seems almost inevitable that any real democratic opening would lead to greater participation of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in a future Egyptian government” (ibid).

It appears that this betrayal has not jeopardized the Podestas’ business in Egypt. It seems that Tony Podesta and his partners in the PLM Group had the foresight to avoid dealing directly with Mubarak, who they recognized as an expendable autocrat. Bennett Roth explains:

While the unfolding events in the Middle East have created a sense of uncertainty about the future of U.S.-Egyptian ties, the lobbying relationship [between the PLM Group and Egypt] remains stable largely because the $1.1 million annual lobbying contract is not with the Egyptian president but with three Cabinet-level offices that remain in place. (Roth)

Thus, the bureaucratic machinery necessary for facilitating the Podestas’ business dealings with Egypt remains firmly entrenched. Money would continue to flow irrespective of potential regime changes. That potentiality began to materialize with Soros in 2008. It was in June of that year that the International Crisis Group (ICG), an international, non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1995, released a report that supported one of Egypt’s most prominent opposition groups, the Muslim Brotherhood. Soros is no small player in the ICG; the group’s website lists him as a member of the executive committee of the board of trustees (“Crisis Group’s Board of Trustees”).

Entitled, “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?,” the ICG report characterizes Egypt’s efforts to subdue the political radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood as impediments to the nation’s democratic process. In particular, the report claims that a constitutional amendment designed to formalize a longstanding prohibition on the Brotherhood’s political participation has also “noticeably degraded the quality of parliamentary and political life” (“Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?”).

In hopes of seeing the legitimization of the Brotherhood, the report recommends the initiation of a discourse between the radical Islamist organization And the Egyptian government. The report states: “Both the regime and the Muslim Brothers should initiate a dialogue as well as preliminary steps to pave the way toward eventual normalization” (ibid).

Reiterating the theme of confrontation or integration, the report contends that the Brotherhood must be assimilated into the political system in order to facilitate democratization and secure stability. The report reads:

Ultimately, the Muslim Brothers are too powerful and too representative for there to be either stability or genuine democratization without finding a way to incorporate them. Their integration should be pursued not just for its own sake, but as an essential step to genuine opening of the political sphere that would also benefit secular opposition forces. (ibid)

To such an end, the report recommends “the regularization of the Muslim Brothers’ participation in political life” (ibid). To bring about such regularization, the report even suggests a constitutional revision that would “set guidelines for the establishment of a political party with religious reference” (ibid).

The report identifies one major obstacle to the Muslim Brotherhood’s integration: the Mubarak presidency. It candidly declares that the “legalization of a party associated with the Muslim Brothers is highly unlikely to occur under President Hosni Mubarak’s stewardship and may have to await the completion of a presidential transition” (ibid).

The ICG may have begun facilitating just such a “presidential transition” when one of its participants, former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Mohamed ElBaradei, returned to Egypt. At its website, the ICG claims that ElBaradei “suspended his membership from the Board of Crisis Group concurrent with his Jan. 2011 return to Egypt” (“Crisis Group’s Board of Trustees”). It is possible that ElBaradei’s suspension of his membership was a ploy designed to mitigate suspicions that he was acting on behalf of the ICG in Egypt. This contention gains greater traction when one considers the fact that ElBaradei’s activism in Egypt resulted in the fulfill-ment of some of the ICG’s recommendations. In turn, these prescriptions tacitly stipulated the removal of Mubarak, which has been fully realized.

On January 30, 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood began collaborating with ElBaradei. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, Essam el Eryan, a Muslim Brotherhood official, stated that “political groups support ElBaradei to negotiate with the regime” (“Muslim Brotherhood throws support behind ElBaradei”). Soros praised the collaboration in a February 3, 2011 Washington Post editorial, describing it as “a hopeful sign that [the Muslim Brotherhood] intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system” (“Why Obama has to get Egypt right”).

Soros’ meddling in Egyptian politics and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of a nation are partially premised upon the globalist outlook he shares with other deviant elites. These globalist sentiments are expressed in his 1998 book The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered. In the book, Soros states: “To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy” (xxix). He disregards the concept of a world government, stating that the abolition of nation-states “is neither feasible nor desirable” (xxix). In the very next breath, however, Soros says, “insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions” (xxix). Thus, international law and international institutions, taken together, constitute a supra-national authority. In this sense, Soros may as well be advocating a world government. For Soros, the nation-state must be domesticated and rendered impotent.

There may be, however, a much deeper, even more sinister motive behind Soros’ assault of Egypt and other countries. Tearing down and rebuilding nations affirms a messianic delusion that afflicts Soros’ psychology. This delusion has occasionally emerged in several different media items. According to Gail Counsell, Soros has told “reporters with a straight face: ‘It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out’” (“The billionaire who built on chaos”). In an interview with Time Magazine, Soros’ friend , head U.S. strategist at Morgan Stanley Byron Wien stated: “You must understand he (Soros) thinks he’s been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems” (“Turning dollars into change”).

Perhaps the most damning messianic proclamation can be found in Soros’ own book, The Alchemy of Finance: Reading the Mind of the Market. In that book, Soros writes:

It will come as no surprise to the reader when I admit that I have always harbored an exagge-rated view of my self-importance – to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes… or, even better, a scientist like Einstein… My sense of reality was strong enough to make me realize that these expectations were excessive and I kept them hidden as a guilty secret. This was a source of considerable unhappiness through much of my adult life. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself. Needless to say, I feel much happier as a result. I have been fortunate enough to be able to act out some of my fantasies… (362-3)

One shudders to think that the destabilization of Egypt may have been on of Soros’ realized “fantasies” on the path to apotheosis. Soros’ messianic delusion alone is not enough to make the speculator dangerous. It is the fact that Soros has the financial power to ostensibly affirm his delusion that makes him dangerous. Of course, the powerbroker will learn otherwise when he neglects to live forever. Sadly, there may be untold volumes of collateral damage left in the wake of this deity’s passing.

Where Christ died for the world, the world may have to die for Soros.

“About the Open Society Foundations.” The Open Society Foundations
Aburish, Said. A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
“A Virtual ‘March of Millions in Solidarity with Egyptian Protestors.” Facebook
“Alliance of Youth Movements Summit: Attendee Biographies.” Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, 3-5 December 2008
Amanpour, Christiane and Lama Hasan et al. “Crisis in Egypt: New Elections Announced for Coming Weeks.” ABC News 31 January 2011
“American Progress Staff.” Center for American Progress
Baer, Robert. Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003.
Bai, Matt. “Notion Building.” The New York Times 12 October 2003
Bainerman, Joel. “Why the Middle East Conflict Continues to Exist.” Joel Bainerman Website —. The Crimes of a President. New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992.
Barahona, Diana. “The Freedom House Files.”
Bell, Melissa. “Twitter blocked in Egypt as protests turn violent.” The Washington Post 25 January 2011
Billington, James H. Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. New York: Basic, 1980.
“Bipartisan Task Force Endorses Democracy.” Council on Foreign Relations 8 June 2005
“Bloggers Learn New Media Tools.” Freedom House 24 March 2010
Blum, William. “Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy.” Excerpted from Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Common Courage Press, 2000.
Blumenthal, Paul. “Lobbying Contacts By Egypt’s Washington Lobbyists.” The Sunlight Foundation 31 January 2011
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. “The global political awakening.” The New York Times 16 December 2008 —. “The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign.” The American Interest Autumn 2005
—. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
Choney, Suzanne. “Egyptian bloggers brave police intimidation.” MSNBC 27 January 2011
Clark, Neil. “NS Profile-George Soros.” New Statesman 2 June 2003
Cohen, Roger. “Who Really Brought Down Milosevic?” The New York Times 26 November 2000
Cook, Stephen. “Is ElBaradei Egypt’s Hero?” Foreign Affairs 26 March 2010
“Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 Results.” Transparency International
Counsell, Gail. “The billionaire who built on chaos: Gail Counsell charts the rise of a speculator who considers himself ‘some kind of god.'” The Independent 3 June 1993
“Crisis Group Senior Advisers.” International Crisis Group
“Crisis Group’s Board of Trustees.” International Crisis Group
Dall, Curtis B. FDR: My Exploited Father-In-Law. Washington, D.C.: Action Associates, 1970.
de Hoyos, Linda. “The Enlightenment’s Crusade Against Reason.” American Almanac 8 Feb. 1993
Dinmore, Guy. “Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran.” The Financial Times 31 March 2006
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Possessed. 1872. Electronic Text Collection. Ed. Steve Thomas. U of Adelaide Library. 28 August 2010
Dreyfuss, Robert. Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2005.
Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Dope, Inc. Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992.
“Egypt braces for nationwide protests.” France 24 25 January 2011
“Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?” International Crisis Group
“Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Resigns.” CBS 11 February 2011
“Egypt protests: Three killed in ‘day of revolt.’” BBC 25 January 2011
“Egyptians Report Poor Communication Services on Day of Anger.” Al-Masry-Al-Youm 25 January 2011
Elliott, Justin. “Who’s doing Mubarak’s bidding in Washington?” Salon 28 January 2011
Engdahl, F. William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004.
Evans, Mike. Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos. Arizona: Time Worthy Books, 2009.
“Feb. 4 declared the ‘Friday of departure.’” Press TV 2 February 2011
Fitzgerald, Paul and Elizabeth Gould. “Mystical Imperialism: Afghanistan’s Ancient Role.” Invisible History 2008
“Freedom House: A History.” Freedom House
“Freedom House.” SourceWatch 8 February 2011
“Freedom House: when ‘freedom’ is only a pretext.”
“Freedom House Annual Report 2007.” Freedom House 1 October 2008
Gamage, Daya. “US covertly aided Egyptian protest leaders for regime change, secret December 2008 Wikileaks cable reveals.” Asian Tribune 30 January 2011
Goeringer, Conrad. “The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati.” American Atheists 2006
Grose, Peter. “Continuing the Inquiry: War and Peace.” Council on Foreign Relations
“Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.” The Cordoba Initiative
Katulis, Brian. “The Obama Administration’s Next Steps in Egypt: More Proactive Efforts Are Needed.” Center for America Progress 2 February 2011
Labeviere, Richard. Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam. New York: Algora Publishing, 2000.
Lappen, Alyssa A. “Feisal Abdul Rauf.” Alyssa A. Lappen Blog 17 August 2010
Ledeen, Michael. The War Against the Terror Masters. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2003.
Lee, Phillip. Against the Protestant Gnostics. New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
Levitsky, Steven and Lucan A. Way. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge UP, 2010.
Loftus, John. “The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda.” 4 October 2004
MacKinnon, Mark. “Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros.” The Globe and Mail 26 November 2003
Marchetti, Victor and John D. Marks. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. New York: Dell Publishing, 1974.
Mahdy, Fareed. “Egypt Rejects U.S. Nuclear Umbrella.” Inter Press Service News Agency 20 August 2009
Marshall, Tim. “What is The Future For President Mubarak?” Sky News 1 February 2011
Martin, Malachi. The Keys of this Blood. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.
Meddeb, Abdelwahab. “Islam and the Enlightenment: Between Ebb and Flow.” Logos Journal Fall 2006
Meyssan, Thierry. “Color revolution fails in Iran.” 27 June 2009
“Middle East and North Africa Program Highlights 2009.” National Endowment for Democracy
Miller, David. “Muslim Brotherhood sits at Egypt’s new democratic table.” Jerusalem Post 23 February 2011
“Mubarak Believes a US-Backed Egyptian Military Faction Plotted His Ouster.” DebkA-Net-Weekly 4 February 2011
Murawiec, Laurent. “Deterring Those Who Are Already Dead?” BESA Center for Strategic Studies Bar-Ilan University 25 May 2006
“Muslim Brotherhood.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 26 February 2011
“Muslim Brotherhood throws support behind ElBaradei.” Jerusalem Post 30 January 2011
“New Generation of Advocates: Empowering Civil Society in Egypt.” Freedom House
Nowak, David. “Medvedev sees ‘fires for decades’ in Arab world.” Associated Press 22 February 2011
Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs, 2004.
Osman, Ahmed Zaki. “Egypt’s police: From liberators to oppressors.” Al-Masry-Al-Youm 24 January 2011
Ostrovsky, Victor. The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
Paul, Ron “U.S. Hypocrisy on Ukraine.” Congressman Ron Paul Website 7 December 2004 —. “National Endowment for Democracy: Paying to Make Enemies of America.” 11 October 2003

Pike, Albert. Morals and Dogma. 1871. Richmond, Virginia: L.H. Jenkins, Inc., 1942.
“Podesta Group.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 29 January 2011
“Preventing a Cascade of Instability: U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress.” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time. New York: Macmillan, 1966.
Raschke, Carl A. The Interruption of Eternity: Modern Gnosticism and the Origins of the New Religious Consciousness. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1980.
Roth, Bennett. “Lobbyists Ride Out Regime Change in Egypt.” Roll Call 16 February 2011
Ryn, Claes G. America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003.
Salama, Sammy and Khalid Hilal. “Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Presses Government for Nuclear Weapons.” WMD Insights November 2006
Shawcross, William. “Turning Dollars into Change.” Time 1 September 1997
Smith, Wolfgang. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Illinois: TAN Books, 1988.
Soros, George. “Why Obama has to get Egypt right.” Washington Post 3 February 2011 —. The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered. New York: PublicAffairs, 1998.
—. The Alchemy of Finance: Reading the Mind of the Market. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1994.
Stock, Jonathan. “If the Americans Come, They Would Steal our Revolution.” Spiegel Online 3 March 2011
Traynor, Ian. “U.S. campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev.” The Guardian 26 November 2004
Trento, Joseph. Prelude to Terror: Edwin P. Wilson and the Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network. New York: Carroll and Graf, 2005. —. The Secret History of the CIA. California: Prima Publishing, 2001.
Webb, James. The Occult Establishment. Open Court, 1976.

George Soros: Imperial Wizard-Double Agent

“Yes, I do have a foreign policy…my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

George Soros

By Heather Cottin

This is not a case of narcissistic personality disorder; this is how George Soros exercises the authority of United States hegemony in the world today. Soros foundations and financial machinations are partly responsible for the destruction of socialism in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. He has set his sights on China. He was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia. Calling himself a philanthropist, billionaire George Soros’ roleis to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. Soros’ commercial and”philanthropic” operations are clandestine, contradictory and coactive. Andas far as his economic activities are concerned, by his own admission, he is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.

Master-builder of the new bribe sector systematically bilking the world, he thrusts himself upon world statesmen and they respond. He has been close to Henry Kissinger, Vaclav Havel and Poland’s General Wojciech Jaruzelski. He supports the Dalai Lama, whose institute is housed in the Presidio in San Francisco, also home to the foundation run by Soros’ friend, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Soros is a leading figure on the Council of Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, and Human Rights Watch (HRW).

In 1994, after a meeting with his philosophical guru, Sir Karl Popper, Soros ordered his companies to start investing in Central and Eastern European communications.The Federal Radio Television Administration of the Czech Republic accepted his offer to take over and fund the archives of Radio Free Europe. Soros moved the archives to Prague and spent over $15 million on their maintenance. A Soros foundation now runs CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty jointly with the U.S. and RFE/RL, which has expanded into the Caucasus and Asia. Soros is the founder and funder of the Open Society Institute. He created and maintains the International Crisis Group (ICG) which,among other things, has been active in the Balkans since the destruction of Yugoslavia. Soros works openly with the United States Institute of Peace -an overt arm of the CIA…When anti-globalization forces were freezing in the streets outside New York’s Waldorf-Astoria hotel in February 2002, George Soros was inside addressing the World Economic Forum. As the police forced protesters into metal cages on Park Avenue, Soros was extolling the virtues of the “Open Society” and joined Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama and others.


George Soros was born in Hungary in 1930 to Jewish parents so removed from their roots that they once vacationed in Nazi Germany. Soros lived under the Nazis, but with the triumph of the Communists moved to England in 1947. There, Soros came under the sway of the philosopher Karl Popper, at the London School of Economics. Popper was a lionized anti-communist ideologue and his teachings formed the basis for Soros’ political tendencies. There is hardly a speech, book or article that Soros writes that does not pay obeisance to Popper’s influence. Knighted in 1965, Popper coined the slogan “Open Society,” which eventually manifested in Soros’ Open Society Fund and Institute. Followers of Popper repeat his words like true believers. Popperian philosophy epitomizes Western individualism.

Soros left England in 1956, and found work on Wall Street where, in the 1960s, he invented the “hedge fund.””…hedge funds catered to very wealthy individuals… The largely secretive funds, usually trading in offshore locations. . produced astronomically superior results. The size of the “bets” often became self fulfilling prophecies: ‘rumors of a position taken by the big hedge funds prompted other investors to follow suit,’ which would in turn force up the price the hedgers were betting on to begin with.”Soros organized the Quantum Fund in 1969 and began to dabble in currency manipulation. In the 1970s, his financial activities turned to:”Alternating long and short positions… Soros won big both on the rise of real estate investment trusts and on their subsequent collapse. Under his 20-year stewardship, Quantum returned an amazing 34.5% a year.

Soros is best known (and feared) for currency speculation.. . In 1997 he earned the rared distinction of being singled out as a villain by a head of state, Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad, for taking part in a highly profitable attack on that nation’s currency.”Through such clandestine financial scheming, Soros became a multibillionaire. His companies control real estate in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico; banking in Venezuela; and are some of the most profitable currency traders in the world, giving rise to the general belief that his highly placed friends assisted him in his financial endeavors, for political as well as financial gain. George Soros has been blamed for the destruction of the Thai economy in 1997. One Thai activist said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.” The Chinese call him “the crocodile,”because his economic and ideological efforts in China were so insatiate, and because his financial speculation created millions of dollars in profits as it ravished the Thai and Malaysian economies. Soros once made a billion dollars in one day by speculating (a word he abhors) on the British pound. Accused of taking “money from every British taxpayer when he speculated against sterling,” he said, “When you speculate in the financial markets you are free of most of the moral concerns that confront an ordinary businessman.. .I did not have to concern myself with moral issues in the financial markets.”Soros has a schizophrenic craving for unlimited personal wealth and a desire to be thought well of by others:”Currency traders sitting at their desks buy and sell currencies of Third World countries in large quantities. The effect of the currency fluctuations on the people who live in those countries is a matter that does not enter their minds. Nor should it; they have a job to do. Yet if we pause to think,we must ask ourselves whether currency traders.. .should regulate the lives of millions.”It was Soros who saved George W. Bush’s bacon when his management of an oil exploration company was ending in failure. Soros was the owner of Harken Energy Corporation, and it was he who bought the rapidly depreciating stocks just prior to the company’s collapse. The future president cashed out at almost one million dollars. Soros said he did it to buy “political influence.” Soros is also a partner in the infamous Carlyle Group. Organized in 1987, “the world’s largest private equity firm” with over twelve billion dollars under management, is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci to CIA head George Bush,Sr. The Carlyle Group makes most of its money from weapons expenditures.


In 1980, Soros began to use his millions to attack socialism in Eastern Europe. He financed individuals who would cooperate with him. His first success was in Hungary. He took over the Hungarian educational and cultural establishment, incapacitating socialist institutions throughout the country.He made his way right inside the Hungarian government. Soros next moved onto Poland, aiding the CIA-funded Solidarity operation and in that same year,he became active in China. The USSR came next.It is not coincidental that the Central Intelligence Agency had operations in all of those countries. The goal of the Agency was exactly the same as that of the Open Society Fund: to dismantle socialism. In South Africa, the CIA sought out dissidents who were anticommunist. In Hungary, Poland and the USSR, the CIA, with overt intervention from the National Endowment for Democracy, the AFL-CIO, USAID and other institutions, supported and organized anticommunists, the very type of individuals recruited by Soros’Open Society Fund. The CIA would have called them “assets.” As Soros said,”In each country I identified a group of people – some leading personalities, others less well known – who share my belief…”Soros’ Open Society organized conferences with anticommunist Czechs, Serbs,Romanians, Hungarians, Croatians, Bosnians, Kosovars. 17 His ever-expanding influence gave rise to suspicions that he was operating as part of the U.S.intelligence complex. In 1989, the Washington Post reported charges first made in 1987 by the Chinese government officials that Soros’ Fund for the Reform and Opening of China had CIA connections. 18


After 1990, Soros funds targeted the Russian educational system, providing the entire nation with textbooks. 19 In effect, Soros ensured the indoctrination of an entire generation of Russian youth with OSI propaganda.Soros foundations were accused of engineering a strategy to take control of the Russian financial system, privatization schemes, and the process of foreign investment in that country. Russians reacted angrily to Soros’ legislative meddlings. Critics of Soros and other U.S. foundations said the goal of these maneuvers was to “thwart Russia as a state, which has the potential to compete with the world’s only superpower.” 20 Russians began to suspect Soros and the CIA were interconnected. Business tycoon Boris Berezovsky said, “I nearly fainted when I heard a couple of years ago that George Soros was a CIA agent.” 21 Berezovsky’s opinion was that Soros, and the West, were “afraid of Russian capital becoming strong.”If the economic and political establishment in the United States fear an economic rivalry from Russia, what better way to control it than to dominate Russian media, education, research centers and science? After spending $250 million for the “transformation of education of humanities and economics at the high school and university levels,” Soros created the International Science Foundation for another $100 million. 22

The Russian Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK) accused Soros foundations in Russia of”espionage.” They noted that Soros was not operating alone; he was part of a full court press that included financing from the Ford and Heritage Foundations; Harvard, Duke, and Columbia universities, and assistance from the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services. 23 The FSK criticized Soros’ payouts to 50,000 Russian scientists, saying that Soros advanced his own interests by gaining control of thousands of Russian scientific discoveries and new technologies to collect state and commercial secrets. 24

In 1995, Russians were infuriated by the insinuation of State Department operative Fred Cuny into the conflict in Chechnya. Cuny’s cover was disaster relief, but his history of involvement in international conflict zones of interest to the U.S., plus FBI and CIA search parties, made clear his government connections. At the time of his disappearance, Cuny was working under contract to a Soros foundation. 25 It is not widely known in the U.S.that the violence in Chechnya, a province in the heart of Russia, is generally perceived as the result of a political destabilization campaign on which Washington looks favorably, and may actually be directing. This assessment of the situation is clear enough to writer Tom Clancy that he felt free to include it as an assertion of fact in his best-seller, The Sum of All Fears. The Russians accused Cuny of being a CIA operative, and part of an intelligence operation to support the Chechen uprising. 26

Soros’ Open Society Institute is still active in Chechnya, as are other Soros-sponsored organizations. Russia was the site of at least one joint endeavor to enhance Soros’ balance sheet, arranged with diplomatic assistance from the Clinton administration.In 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright blocked a $500 million loan guarantee by the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Russian company, Tyumen Oil,on the grounds that it was contrary to U.S. national interests. Tyumen wanted to buy American-made oil equipment and services from Dick Cheney’s Halliburton Company and ABB Lummus Global of Bloomfield, New Jersey. 27George Soros was an investor in a company that Tyumen had been trying to acquire. Both Soros and BP Amoco lobbied to prevent this transaction, and Albright obliged. 28


Soros’ Open Society Institute has a finger in every pot. Its board of directors reads like a “Who’s Who” of Cold War and New World Order pundits. Paul Goble is Communications Director; ‘he was the major political commentator at Radio Free Europe. Herbert Okun served in the Nixon State Department as an intelligence adviser to Henry Kissinger. Kati Marton is the wife of former Clinton administration UN ambassador and envoy to Yugoslavia,Richard Holbrooke. Marton lobbied for the Soros-funded radio station B-92,also a project of’ the National Endowment for Democracy (another overt arm of the CIA), which was instrumental in bringing down the Yugoslav government. When Soros founded the Open Society Fund he picked liberal pundit Aryeh Neier to lead it. Neier was the head of Helsinki Watch, a putative human rights organization with an anticommunist bent. In 1993, the Open Society Fund became the Open Society Institute.Helsinki Watch became Human Rights Watch in 1975. Soros is currently on itsAdvisory Board, both for the Americas and the Eastern Europe-Central Asia Committees, and his Open Society Fund/Soros/OSI is listed as a funder. 29

Soros is intimately connected to HRW, and Neier wrote columns for The Nation magazine without mentioning that he was on Soros’ payroll. 30

Soros is intimately involved in HRW, although he does his best to hide it.31 He says he just funds and sets up these programs and lets them run. But they do not stray from the philosophy of the funder. HRW and OSI are close.Their views do not diverge. Of course, other foundations fund these institutions as well, but Soros’ influence dominates their ideology.George Soros’ activities fall into the construct developed in 1983 and enunciated by Allen Weinstein, founder of the National Endowment for Democracy. Weinstein said, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”32

Soros is operating exactly within the confines of the intelligence complex. He is little different from CIA drug runners in Laos in the 1960s, or the mujahedin who profited from the opium trade while carrying out CIA operations against socialist Afghanistan in the 1980s. He simply funnels (and takes home) a whole lot more money than those pawns, and he does much of his business in the light of day. His candor insofar as he expresses it is a sort of spook damage control that serves to legitimize the strategies of U.S. foreign policy. The majority of people in the U.S. today who consider themselves politically left-of-center are undoubtedly pessimistic about the chances for a socialist transformation of society. Thus the Soros ‘Decentralization” model, or the”piecemeal” approach to “negative utilitarianism, the attempt to minimize the amount of misery,” which was Popper’s philosophy, appeals to them. 33

Soros funded an HRW study that was used to back California and Arizona legislation relaxing drug laws. 34 Soros favors the legalization of drugs -one way of temporarily reducing awareness of one’s misery. Soros is an equal-opportunity bribester. At a loftier rung of the socioeconomic ladder, one finds Social Democrats who accept Soros funding and believe in civil liberties within the context of capitalism. 35 For these folks, the evil consequences of Soros’ business activities (impoverishing people all over the world) are mitigated by his philanthropic activities. Similarly, liberal/left intellectuals, both in the U.S. and abroad, have been drawn in by the “Open Society” philosophy, not to mention the occasional funding plum. The New Left in the United States was a social democratic movement. It was resolutely anti-Soviet, and when Eastern Europe and the USSR fell, few in the New Left opposed the destruction of the socialist systems. The New Left did not mourn or protest when the hundreds of millions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia lost their right to jobs, housing at reasonable and legally protected rents, free education through graduate school, health care and cultural enhancement. Most belittled any suggestion that the CIA and certain NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy or the Open Society Fund had actively participated in the annihilation of socialism. These people felt that the Western determination to destroy the USSR since 1917 was barely connected to the fall of the USSR. For them, socialism failed of its own accord, because it was flawed. As revolutions, such as the ones in Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua or El Salvador were destroyed by proxy forces or were stalled by demonstration”elections,” New Left pragmatists shrugged their shoulders and turned away.

The New Left sometimes seemed to deliberately ignore the post-Soviet machinations of U.S. foreign policy. Bogdan Denitch, who had political aspirations in Croatia, was active within the Open Society Institute, and received OSI funding. 36 Denitch favored the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia, NATO bombing of Bosnia and then Yugoslavia, and even a ground invasion of Yugoslavia. 37 Denitch was a founder and chair for many years of the Democratic Socialists of America, a leading liberal-left group in the U.S. He has also long chaired the prestigious Socialist Scholars Conference, through which he was key to manipulating the sympathies of many toward support for NATO expansion. 38

Other Soros targets for support include Refuse and Resist the ACLU, and a host of other liberal causes. 39

Soros added another unlikely trophy when he became involved in the New School for Social Research in New York, long an academy of choice for left intellectuals. He now funds the East and Central Europe Program there. 40Many leftists who were inspired by the revolution in Nicaragua sadly accepted the election of Violetta Chamorro and the defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990. Most of the Nicaragua support network faded thereafter. Perhaps the New Left could have learned from the rising star of Michael Kozak. He was a veteran of Washington’s campaigns to install sympathetic leaders in Nicaragua, Panama and Haiti, and to undermine Cuba – he headed the U.S.Interests Section in Havana.After organizing the Chamorro victory in Nicaragua, Kozak moved on to become U.S. Ambassador to Belarus. Kozak worked with the Soros-sponsored “Internet Access and Training Program” (IATP), which was busy “creating future leaders” in Belarus. 41 This program was simultaneously imposed upon Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. IATP operates openly with the support of the U.S. Department of State. To its credit, Belarus expelled Kozak and the Soros-Open Society/U.S.State Department crowd. The government of Aleksandr Lukashenko found that for four years before moving to Minsk, Kozak was instrumental in engineering the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Belarus opposition. Kozak was creating a united opposition coalition, funding web-sites, newspapers and opinion polls, and tutoring a student resistance movement similar to Yugoslavia’s Otpor. Kozak brought in Otpor leaders to instruct dissidents in Belarus. 42

Just before September 11, 2001, the U.S. was revving up a demonization campaign against President Aleksandr Lukashenko. Demonizing Lukashenko has temporarily taken a back burner to the “war on terrorism.”Through OSI and HRW, Soros was a major supporter of the B-92 radio station in Belgrade. Soros funded Otpor, the organization that received those”suitcases of money” in support of the October 5, 2000 coup that toppled the Yugoslav government. 43 Human Rights Watch helped legitimize the subsequent kidnapping and show trial of Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague by saying nothing about his rights.” 44 Louise Arbour, who served as judge at that illegal tribunal, is presently on the Board of Soros’ International Crisis Group. 45 The Open Society/Human Rights Watch gang has been working on Macedonia, calling it part of their “civilizing mission.” 46 Expect that republic to be “saved” to finish the total disintegration of the former Yugoslavia.


Soros has actually stated that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money management business amoral. 47 Yet those in charge of Soros-funded NGOs have a clear and consistent agenda. One of Soros’ most influential institutions is the International Crisis Group, founded in 1986. ICG is headed by individuals from the very center of political and corporate power. Its board includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, Morton Abramowitz, former U.S.Assistant Secretary of State; Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; and Richard Allen, former U.S. National Security Adviser, Allen is noteworthy for quitting Nixon’s National Security Council out of disgust with the liberal tendencies of Henry Kissinger; recruiting Oliver North to Reagan’s National Security Council, and negotiating missiles for hostages in the Iran-Contra scandal. For these individuals, “containing conflict” boils down to U.S. control over the people and resources of the world. In the 1980s and 1990s, under the aegis of the Reagan Doctrine, U.S. covert and overt operations in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia were in the works. Soros was openly active in most of these places, working to buy off would-be revolutionaries, or subsidize politicians, intellectuals and anyone else who might come to power when the revolutionary moment had passed.

According to James Petras:

“By the early 1980s the more perceptive sectors of the neoliberal ruling classes realized that their policies were polarizing the society and provoking large-scale social discontent. Neoliberal politicians began to finance and promote a parallel strategy ‘from below,’ the promotion of ‘grassroots’ organizations with an ‘anti-statist’ ideology to intervene among potentially conflictory classes, to create a “social cushion.” These organizations were financially dependent on neoliberal sources and were directly involved in competing with sociopolitical movements for the allegiance of local leaders and activist communities. By the 1990s these organizations, described as “nongovernmental,” numbered in the thousands and were receiving close to four billion dollars world-wide.” 48

In Underwriting Democracy, Soros boasts about the “Americanization of Eastern Europe.” According to his account, through his education programs he began to establish a young cadre of Sorosian leaders. These Soros Foundation-educated young men and women are prepared to fulfill the functions of so-called “influence agents.” Thanks to their fluent knowledge of languages and their insertion into the emerging bureaucracies in target countries, these recruits would philosophically smooth the inroads for Western multinational corporations.Career diplomat Herbert Okun, on the Europe Committee of Human Rights Watch,along with George Soros, is connected to a host of State Department-linked institutions, from USAID to the Rockefeller-funded Trilateral Commission.>From 1990 to 1997, Okun was executive director of something called the Financial Services Volunteer Corps, part of USAID, “to help establish free market financial systems in former communist countries.” 49 George Soros is in complete accord with the capitalists who are in the process of taking control of the global economy.


Soros claims not to do philanthropy in the countries in which he is involved as a currency trader. 50 But Soros has often taken advantage of his connections to make key investments. Armed with a study by ICC, and with the support of Bernard Kouchner, chief of the UN Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK), Soros attempted to acquire the most profitable mining complex in the Balkans.In September 2000, in a hurry to take the Trepca mines before the Yugoslavian election, Kouchner stated that pollution from the mining complex was raising lead levels in the environment. 51 This is incredible considering that he cheered when the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia rained depleted uranium on the country and released more than 100,000 tons of carcinogens into the air, water and soil. 52 But Kouchner had his way, and the mines were closed for “health reasons.” Soros invested $150 million inan effort to gain control of Trepca’s gold, silver, lead, zinc and cadmium,which make the property worth $5 billion. 53As Bulgaria was imploding into “free-market” chaos, Soros was busy scavenging through the wreckage, as Reuters reported in early 2001:”The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) invested $3.0million in [Bulgarian high-tech company] Rila, the first firm to benefit from a new $30 million facility set up by the EBRD to support IT firms in central and eastern Europe…. Another $3. 0 million came from U.S private investment fund Argus Capital Partners, sponsored by Prudential Insurance Company of America and opera ting in central and eastern Europe… Soros,who had invested around $3.0 million in Rila and in 2001 invested another$1.0 million…remained its majority owner. ” 54


His pose as a philanthropist gives Soros the power to shape international public opinion when social conflict raises the question of who are the victims and who are the malefactors. Like other NGOs, Human Rights Watch, Soros’ mouthpiece on human rights, avoids or ignores most organized and independent working class struggles. In Colombia, labor leaders are routinely killed by paramilitaries working in concert with the U.S.-sponsored government. Because those unions oppose neoliberal economics, HRW is relatively silent. In April of this year, HRW’s Jose Vivanco testified before the U.S. Senate in favor of Plan Colombia: 55

“Colombians remain committed to human rights and democracy They need help.Human Rights Watch has no fundamental problem with the United States providing that help.” 56

HRW equates the actions of the Colombian guerrilla fighters struggling to free themselves from the oppression of state terror, poverty and exploitation with the repression of the U.S-sponsored armed forces and paramilitary death squads, the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia). HRW validated the Pastrana government and its military, whose role was to protect property rights and maintain the economic and political status quo.According to HRW, 50% of civilian deaths are the work of the government-tolerated death squads. 57 The correct number is 80%. 58

HRW essentially certified the election and ascendancy of the Uribe government in 2002 as well. Uribe is a throwback to the Latin American dictators the U.S. supported in the past, although he was “elected.” HRW had no comment about the fact that the majority boycotted the election. 59

In the Caribbean Basin, Cuba is another opponent of neoliberalism that has been demonized by Human Rights Watch. In nearby Haiti, Soros-funded activities have worked to defeat popular aspirations following the end of the Duvalier dictatorship by undermining Haiti’s first democratically elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. HRW’s Ken Roth helpfully chimed in with U.S. denunciations of Aristide as “undemocratic.” To demonstrate his idea of “democracy,” Soros foundations were commencing operations in Haiti complimentary to such unseemly U.S. activities as USAID’s promotion of persons associated with FRAPH, the notorious CIA-sponsored death squads which have terrorized the country since the fall of ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier. 60

On HRW’s web site, Director Roth criticized the U.S. for not opposing China more vigorously. Roth’s activities include the creation of the Tibetan Freedom Concert, a traveling propaganda project that toured the U.S. with major rock musicians, urging young people to support Tibet against China. 61 Tibet has been a pet project of the CIA for many years. 62 Roth has recently pressed for opposition to Chinese control over its oil-rich western province of Xinjiang. With the colonialist “divide and conquer” approach, Roth has tried to convince some of the Uighur religious minority in Xinjiang that the U.S/NATO intervention in Kosovo holds promise as a model for them. As late as August 2002, the U.S. government has given some support in this endeavor as well.U.S. designs on this region were signaled clearly when a New York Times article on Xinjiang Province in western China described the Uighurs as a “Muslim majority, [which] lives restively under Chinese rule.” They “are well versed in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia last year which some celebrate for liberating the Muslims in Kosovo; they fantasize about a similar rescue here.” 63 The New York Times Magazine noted “Recent discoveries of oil have made Xinjiang extremely attractive to international trade,” while comparing the conditions for its indigenous population to those in Tibet. 64


When Sorosian organizations count, they seem to lose track of the truth. Human Rights Watch asserted that 500 people, not over 2,000, were killed by N ATO bombers in the 1999 war in Yugoslavia. 65 They said only 350, not over4,000, died as a result of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan. 66 When the U.S.bombed Panama in 1989, HRW prefaced its report by saying that the “ouster of Manuel Noriega…and installation of the democratically-elected government of President Guillermo Endara brought high hopes in Panama…”

***The report neglected to mention the number of casualties. Human Rights Watch prepared the groundwork for the NATO attack on Bosnia in 1993 by the false rape-of-thousands and “genocide” stories. 67 This tactic of creating political hysteria was necessary for the United States to carryout its Balkan policy. It was repeated in 1999 when HRW functioned as the shock troops of indoctrination for the NATO attack on Yugoslavia. All of Soros’ blather about the rule of law was forgotten. The U.S. and NATO made their own law, and the institutions of George Soros stood behind it.

Massaging of numbers to provoke a response was a major part of a Council on Foreign Relations campaign after September 11,2001. This time it was the 2,801 killed in the World Trade Center. The CFR met on November 6, 2001, to plan a “major public diplomacy campaign.” CFR created an “Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism.” ***Soros joined Richard C.Holbrooke, Newton L. Gingrich, John M. Shalikashvili (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and other powerful individuals on a campaign to make the Trade Center dead into tools for U.S. foreign policy. The CFR report set out to make the case for a war on terrorism. George Soros’ fingerprints were all over the campaign:

“Have senior-level U.S. officials press friendly Arab and other Muslim governments not only to publicly condemn the 9/11 attacks, but also to back the rationale and goals of the U.S. anti-terror campaign. We are never going to convince the publics in the Middle East and South Asia of the nghteousness of our cause if their governments remain silent. We need to help them to deflect any blow-hack from such statements, but we must have them vocally on board…. Encourage Bosnian, Albanian, and Turkish Muslims to educate foreign audiences regarding the U.S. role in saving the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo in 1995-99, and our long-standing, close ties to Muslims around the world. Engage regional intellectuals and journalists across the board, regardless of their views. Routinely monitor the regional press in real time to enable prompt responses… Stress references to the victims (and ideally named victims to personalize them) whenever we discuss our cause and goals.” 68

Sorosian innumeracy: counting to bolster and defend U.S. foreign policy.Soros is very worried about the decline in the world capitalist system and he wants to do something about it, now. He recently said: “I can already discern the makings of the final crisis…. Indigenous political movements are likely to arise that will seek to expropriate the multinational corporations and recapture the ‘national’ wealth.” 69

Soros is seriously suggesting a plan to circumvent the United Nations. He proposes that the “democracies of the world ought to take the lead and forge a global network of alliances that could work with or without the United Nations.” If he were psychotic, one might think he was having an episode. But the fact is, Soros’ assertion that “The United Nations is constitutionally incapable of fulfilling the promises contained in the preamble of its charter,” reflects the thinking of such reactionary institutions as the American Enterprise Institute. 70 Though many conservatives refer to the Soros network as left-wing, on the question of U.S. affiliation with the United Nations Soros is on the same page as John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, who, with “[M]any Republicans in Congress-believe that nothing more should be paid to the UN system.” 71 (mediachecker-> yours truly agrees with John R. Bolton)

There has been a decades-long rightwing campaign against the UN. Now Soros is leading it. On various Soros web sites one may read criticism of the United Nations as too rich, unwilling to share information, or flawed in ways that make it unfit for the way the world should run according to George Soros.Even writers at The Nation, writers who clearly ought to know better, have been influenced by Soros’ ideas. William Greider, for instance, recently found some validity in Soros’ criticism that the United Nations should not be a venue for “tin-pot dictators and totalitarians. . treated as equal partners.” 72

This kind of Eurocentric racism is at the heart of Soros’ hubris. His assumption that the United States can and should run the world is a prescription for fascism on a global scale. For much too long, Western”progressives” have been giving Soros a pass. Probably Greider and others will find the reference to fascism excessive, unjustified, even outrageous. But just listen closely to what Soros himself has to say:

“In old Rome, the Romans only voted. In the modern global capitalism, the Americans only vote. The Brazilians do not vote.” 73


1. Dan Seligman, “Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire,” commentary,April 2002. 2. “Sir Karl Popper in Prague, Summary of Relevant Facts Without Comment,” 3. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Transcaucasia/Central Asia, 4. Seligman. 5.Lee Penn, “1999, A Year of Growth for the United Religions Initiative.”;sz=720×300;ord=6249?. 6.George Soros, Soros on Soros, Staying Ahead of the Curve (New York: John Wiley, 1995), p. 26. 7. “Hedge Funds Get Trimmed,” Wall Street Journal, May1, 2000. 8. Theodore Spencer, “Investors of the Century,” Fortune, December1999. 9. Jim Freer, “Most International Trader George Soros,” Latin Tradecom, October 1998, 10.Busaba Sivasomboon, “Soros Speech in Thailand Canceled,” AP wire, January28, 2001. 11. Sivasomboon. 12. George Soros, The Asia Society Hong Kong Center Speech, 13. Soros on Soros, pill. 14. George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism(New York: Public Affairs, 2000). 15. David Corn, “Bush and the Billionaire,How Insider Capitalism Benefited W,” The Nation, July 17, 2002. 16. Soros onSoros, pp. 122-25. 17. Agence France-Presse, October 8, 1993. 18. MarianneYen, “Fund’s Representatives Arrested in China,” Washington Post, August 8,1989, p. A4. 19. Los Angeles Times, November 24, 1994, p. ASS. 20. Chrystia Freeland, “Moscow Suspicion Grows: Kremlin Factions Are at Odds OverPolicy,” Financial Times (London), January 19, 1995. 21. Interfax Russian News, November 6, 1999. 22. Irma Dezhina, “U.S. Non-profit Foundations in Russia, Impact on Research and Education” 23.”FSK Suspects Financing of Espionage on Russia’s Territory,” AP wire,January 18, 1995. 24. David Hoffman, “Proliferation of Parties Gives Russia a Fractured Democratic System,” Washington Post, October 1, 1995, p. A27;Margaret Shapiro, “Russian Agency Said to Accuse Americans of Spying,”Washington Post, January 14, 1995, p. A17. 25. Allan Turner, “Looking For Trouble,” Houston chronicle, May 28, 1995, p. E1; Kim Masters, “Where Is Fred Cuny,” Washington Post, June 19, 1995, p. D1; Patrick Anderson, “TheDisaster Expert Who Met His Match,” Washington Post, September 6, 1999, p.C9; Scott Anderson, “What Happened to Fred Cuny?” New York Times Magazine,February 25, 1996, p. 44. 26. Scott Anderson, “The Man Who Tried to Save theWorld: the Dangerous Life and Disappearance of Fred Cuny,” Philanthropy Roundtable, March/April 2002, 27. “U.S.Blocks $500M Aid Deal for Russians” Wall Street Journal, December 22, 1999. 28. Bob Djurdjevic, “Letters to the Editor,” Wall Street Journal, December22, 1999. 29. “Open Society Institute,” 30. Connie Bruck, “The World According to Soros,” New Yorker, January 23,1995. 31. Olga M. Lazin, “The Rise of the U.S. Decentralized Model for Philanthropy, George Soros’ Open Society and National Foundations inEurope,” 32. David Ignatius, “Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups,”Washington Post, September 22, 1991, p. C1. 33. Patrick McCartney, “Study Suggests Drug Laws Resemble Notorious Passbook Laws,” 34. McCartney. 35. See Sean Gervasi, “Western Intervention in the USSR,” Covert Action Information Bulletin, no. 39, Winter 1991-92. 36. “The Cenasia Discussion List,” 37.Bogdan Denitch, “The Case Against Inaction,” The Nation, April 26, 1999. 38.”Biographies, 2002 Socialist Scholars Conference,” 39. “Grants,” 40. “East and Central Europe Program,” 41. Oxana Popovitch, “IREX Belarus Opens a New IATP Site in Molodechno.” 42. lan Traynor, “Belarussian Foils Dictator-buster…For Now,” Guardian,September 14, 2001,,3604,551533,00.html 43.Steven Erlanger, “Kostunica Says Some Backers ‘Unconsciously Work forAmerican Imperial Goals,”‘ New York Times, September 20, 2000; and “Bringing Down a Dictator, Serbia Calling.” PBS, 44. Milosevic in the Hague, Focus on Human Rights, “In-Depth Report Documents Milosevic Crimes,” April 2001, 45.”About ICG,” May 2002, 46. MacedoniaCrimes Against Civilians: Abuses by Macedonian Forces in Lluboten, August10-12, 2001 47. Andrew Leonard. “The Man Who Bought the World,” February 28,2002, 48.James Petras, “Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America,” Monthly Review, vol.49, no. 7, December 1997. 49. International Security Studies, “HerbertOkun,” 50. Leonard. 51. Edward W. Miller, “Brigandage,” Coastal Post Monthly, Mann County, CA, September2000. 52. Mirjan Nadrljanski, “Eco-Disaster in Pancevo: Consequences on the Health of the Population,” July 19, 1999, 53.”Soros Fund Launches $150 MIn U.S.Backed Balkans Investment,” Bloomberg Business News, July 26, 2000; Chris Hedges, “Below It All in Kosovo,” New York limes, July 8,1998, p. A4. 54. Galina Sabeva, “Soros’ Sofia IT Firm Gets $9 Million Equity Investment,” Reuters, January 23, 2001. 55. On Plan Colombia see: Manuel Salgado Tamayo, “The Geostrategy of Plan Colombia CovertAction Quarterly no. 71, Winter 2001. 56. “Colombia: Human Rights Watch Testifies Before the Senate,” Human Rights Watch Backgrounder, April24, 2002, 57.”Colombia: Bush/Pastrana Meeting, HRW World Report 2001, Human Rights News”(New York, November 6, 2001). 58. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Action Alert,” New York limes Covering for Colombian Death Squads,” February 9,2001. 59. Doug Stokes “Colombia Primer Q&A on the Conflict and U.S. Role,”April 16, 2002. Znet, 60. Interpress Service, January 18, 1995. For additional background see Jane Regan, “AIDing U.S. Interests In Haiti,” Covert Action Quarterly no. 51, Winter 1994-95; andNoam Chomsky, “Haiti, The Uncivil Society,” Covert Action Quarterly no. 57, Summer 1996. 61. Sam Tucker, Human Rights Watch, 62. John Kenneth Knaus, Orphans of the Cold War (New York, BBS Public Affairs 1999), p. 236. 63. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Defiant Chinese Muslims Keep Their Own Time,” New York limes,November 19, 2000, p. 3. 64. Jonathan Reynolds (pseudonym), “The Clandestine Chef,” New York Times Magazine, December 3, 2000. 65. “Lessons of War,” LeMonde Diplomatique, March 2000; Peter Phillips, “Untold Stories of U.S./NATO’s War and Media Complacency,” 66. Marc W. Herold, “A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States’ Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting,” 67. “Rape as a crimeagainst humanity,” 68.”Improving the Public Diplomacy Campaign in the War Against Terrorism,”Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism, Council onForeign Relations, November 6, 2001. 69. William Greider, “Curious GeorgeTalks the Market, The Nation, February 15, 1999. 70. “Oppose John Bolton’sNomination as State Department’s Arms Control Leader,” Council for a LivableWorld , April 11, 2001, 71. Ibid. 72. Greider. 73. “The Dictatorship of Financial Capital,” Federation ofSocial and Educational Assistance (FASE), Brazil, 2002,


Heather Cottin is a writer, lifelong political activist, and recently retired high school history teacher. She lives in Freeport, NY and was for many years married to the late scholarand activist Sean Gervasi.Covert Action Quarterly e-mail:

The last article posted is a little OTT but will store it here temporarily until I read it more thoroughly. For example, it’s obvious she despises Soros (don’t most of us) yet she quotes from his funded sites, such as, Human Rights Watch….

See: The Alliance of Youth Movements – State Department, CFT, Google, AT&T…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to GEORGE SOROS

  1. candi riefle says:


  2. Pingback: “SE PARE CĂ LUMEA SE PREGĂTEȘTE DE RĂZBOI” “LOOKS AS IF WORLD IS PREPARING FOR WAR” Mikhail GORBACHEV – Former Soviet president warns against nuclear proliferation CNBC – JANUARY 27, 2017 C.I.A. – F.B.I. – SECRET SERVICES

  3. Pingback: La Sociedad Abierta, presta y dispuesta para un patriarca llamado, George Soros – Desmontando a Babylon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s